DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of John William MacDougall, the Member for Glenrothes. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sound Recordings (Copyright)

James Gray: What his policy is on the extension of copyright duration and terms affecting sound recordings; and if he will make a statement.

Andy Burnham: Policy responsibility for intellectual property rests with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. However, given my Department's responsibility for the music industry, these are issues in which we have a close interest. The Government are considering the European Commission proposal currently on the table in Brussels. Discussions are still continuing at a European level.

James Gray: A band named Pendragon in my constituency tells me that when it recently produced a new DVD it sold 50 copies in the first week, but in that same week 3,000 copies were illegally downloaded. Does the Secretary of State not agree that he ought now to implement the recommendation made two years ago in the Gowers report that would take some steps towards stamping out illegal downloading, which is driving smaller bands and small labels in particular to the wall, and is it not also about time that he accepted the Select Committee recommendation that copyright should be extended to 90 years?

Andy Burnham: There are two issues in that supplementary question, the first of which is about illegal downloading. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that in the summer the Government facilitated a memorandum of understanding signed between the film and music industries and the major internet service providers, with general agreement to achieving a significant reduction in illegal downloading within two to three years. He is right to raise this issue, because it goes right to the heart of the success of the British music industry in the long term; there are still far too many tracks downloaded illegally, and we have to take firm action. I hope that he agrees that the Government have changed their tone on this issue and are signalling far more urgency.
	The question of term involves complicated issues, and while the Commission has put forward its proposals, I think it is fair to say that no consensus has yet emerged around them. Here, our Select Committee proposed the idea of term extensions to 70 years, so there are different ideas and we need to see if we can find a way through and a compromise position. Again, I am looking very closely at all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State has consistently said that he wants to do something big for the music industry. Well, here is his chance. He talks about consensus; all the stakeholders in the music industry, from the labels to the musicians, collection agencies and publishers, want an end to this unique and historic discrimination against musicians. The draft directive is on the table in Brussels. All the Secretary of State has to do is say yes and support it. Why will he not do that?

Andy Burnham: The memorandum that I mentioned a few moments ago is something significant for the music industry, because illegal downloading is seriously threatening its future. On the question of copyright term, I think it is fair to say that there is not quite the unanimity that the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. There is still some debate about whether the Commission's proposals are the right ones. They take us a step further forward and they raise the question of benefits to performers, which is important, and which, from my Department's perspective, I am keen to pursue. However, I do not think this is quite as easy as he seems to make out.

Stephen Pound: May I say what a pleasure it is to see a young Evertonian at the Dispatch Box, as opposed to an old Etonian? On this subject, does my right hon. Friend know whether Mr. Steven Wonder, the author of "A man with a plan", is still receiving his loyalties at present? Finally, may I say that there is a great deal of confusion, and that while we seek illumination we seem to find caliginosity everywhere? Will the Secretary of State please undertake at some stage in the future to clarify this issue?

Andy Burnham: Well, I could do with some clarification myself, I think, after that question, but my hon. Friend is right that there is a need for clarification. These are complicated issues, which we are looking at very carefully. They raise strong feelings in the music industry, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned. We are looking at them very carefully and we will come to a UK Government position very soon.

David Tredinnick: If I write to the Secretary of State, will he look at the issue of copyright extension as it affects the British Film Institute, which, as he knows, has the largest and most important film archive in the world? Will he, furthermore, congratulate the BFI on its 75th anniversary, and in particular "Screenonline" for schools, which has brought schools, through digital media, to so many of our educational institutions?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and indeed I will congratulate the BFI. The scheme that he mentions is very worthy and valuable. Illegal downloading affects both the music industry and the film industry, although it has affected the music industry first, and the memorandum we signed affects both music and film. He also talked about copyright extension. These are issues that potentially have an impact on more than just the music industry, and we have to give careful consideration to rewarding people who have made content that is still very much in demand around the world while striking a fair balance for consumers who wish to get access to that content for the lowest possible price. These are complicated judgments. We have to come to the right decision, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have the interests of the film and music industries very much at the forefront of my mind.

Elite Athletes

Sharon Hodgson: What steps he plans to take to aid the identification and development of elite athletes.

Andy Burnham: The Government and UK Sport are working with sports governing bodies to identify and develop elite Olympic and Paralympic athletes through our world-class performance programme. We have seen a fundamental shift in the way in which elite sport is resourced—from £63 million of lottery funding for Sydney to £265 million of lottery and Exchequer funding for Beijing, building to a significant package of lottery, Exchequer and private funds for London 2012.

Sharon Hodgson: I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the Sunderland boxer Tony Jeffries on the bronze medal that he won in Beijing. However, the Secretary of State may not be aware of the problems that Tony Jeffries encountered trying to secure funding for his pre-Olympic training. My friend and neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), thanks to some good work, managed to secure some funding on Tony Jeffries' behalf. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the same problems will not be encountered by north-east athletes or indeed athletes from anywhere in the UK in the run-up to 2012?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gives me a useful prompt to say that I am sure that the whole House wishes to join me in congratulating our Olympians and Paralympians on their outstanding success at the Beijing Olympics in the summer. They truly inspired and lifted the entire nation, and we all pay tribute to them; it was the best ever performance by Great Britain on foreign soil in an Olympic games. I saw Tony Jeffries fighting while I was in Beijing, and I am sure that we would want to congratulate him, too, on his bronze medal. I know that he faced particular challenges leading up to Beijing, although he did benefit from some world-class performance funding. What this says to me is that as we move forward, we need to put in place a package of support that really lets our young people focus on sport. That is the real benefit of world-class performance funding—giving them some certainty, so that they can focus on what they do best. We can all learn the lessons of the run-up to Beijing, and try to do even better as we come into the London Olympics.

Mark Harper: In a similar vein to that of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson), I wonder whether the Secretary of State will join me in wishing the very best of luck to Jake Arkell and Callum Frowen, from my constituency, who this weekend will be participating in the world drugs-free powerlifting championships in Antwerp. They trained at the Forest fitness centre in Cinderford, which trains people across my constituency. I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in wishing them the very best of luck.

Andy Burnham: I certainly will. I am sure that everybody wishes to see British sporting success continue and the momentum that we established in Beijing go on and on, so they have my very best wishes.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not mind if we do not run through all the medallists that we have in Loughborough; we would probably be here for some time, and I think that we came 34th in the medal table at Beijing this time round. However, he will know that there is still the substantial shortfall of £100 million of funding—it has probably reduced a little now, to £69 million—leading up to 2012. Unless there is a significant change in the Government's position in the immediate future, the cuts to the programme could put at risk all the success that we achieved by coming fourth in the Olympic and Paralympic tables in Beijing. Will my right hon. Friend as a matter of urgency make sure that this thing is sorted out by the time of UK Sport's December board meeting?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we do not wish to lose any momentum that we have gained on the Olympic games. It is also important to say that the public support available now to our elite Olympians and Paralympians is obviously unprecedented, but we always said that wished to supplement it with funds raised from private sponsorship in the private sector, so we have come to a package of support for elite athletes that is essentially a mixed economy of lottery and Exchequer funds and funds from the private sector. In the long term, that will be the best way to sustain elite sport. We will soon announce a new scheme called "medal hopes", which will provide opportunities for businesses up and down the country to be associated with the world-class performance programme, and I am very confident that we will raise the money needed to ensure that we get even more success in London 2012.

Humfrey Malins: Does the Secretary of State agree that the National Rifle Association at Bisley has done a tremendous amount of work in the past few years in encouraging young people to develop their skills and their participation in the Olympic sport of target shooting? Wonderful work has been done. Can the Government say anything to encourage that improvement among young people that the NRA has started? Can he say a word or two about Bisley's future as far as the Olympics are concerned?

Andy Burnham: I would not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said; the NRA does extremely good work. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has visited Bisley, and we remain in close discussion with the NRA and the Home Office, which has an interest in these matters. We shall continue to take forward those discussions, and I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said.

Hugh Robertson: May I associate myself entirely with the Minister's remarks about our Olympians and Paralympians?
	I wish to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). Over the past month, I have met every sports organisation involved with sourcing this missing £100 million—UK Sport, the British Olympic Association, the governing bodies of the individual sports or even Fast Track—and not one of them believes that the full amount is deliverable from the private sector, simply because so many other organisations are in the market looking for private funding. The Secretary of State must be aware that that uncertainty is having an extremely damaging effect on preparations for London 2012. Have any of those key organisations given him the same warning that they have given me?

Andy Burnham: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's question, but first I wish to put some facts on the table. Some £265 million of public money was made available to support our Olympians and Paralympians in preparing for the games in Beijing. Let us cast our minds back. Practically nothing was available in the run-up to the Atlanta Olympics and Britain came 36th in the medals table. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say, "Before the lottery". It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that some Exchequer funding was put into the effort to support the team for Beijing.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about a missing £100 million. It has always been our plan to put in place at least the same amount of support that we had for the Beijing games and then to supplement that with contributions from the private sector. We are working out the details of that scheme. Before the end of this year we will make a detailed set of announcements that give sport certainty going into this Olympic period—a unique period when the world spotlight will be upon us. I am proud of what we have done so far to support elite sport, and I am confident that we will build on the momentum and success that we achieved in Beijing.

World Heritage Sites

David Wright: What plans he has further to support World Heritage Sites in the UK.

Barbara Follett: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question I should like to pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor and friend, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and wish her husband, Henry, a very speedy recovery.
	The Government are reviewing their UK world heritage policy, and as part of that review we will examine the costs and benefits of world heritage status and the future of the UK tentative list. We propose to consult widely on that shortly, and we are also looking to enhance protection for our world heritage sites through the planning framework.

David Wright: Do we not need to do more to promote UK world heritage sites around the world? Do not the 2012 Olympics give us an excellent opportunity to promote world heritage and world games? Will the Minister agree to meet me—I chair the all-party group on world heritage sites—and the Local Authority World Heritage Forum to discuss how the Government can support the better promotion of world heritage sites in the run-up to 2012?

Barbara Follett: I would be very happy indeed to do that, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he and the all-party group on world heritage sites do. I know that he has a particular interest in the site at Ironbridge.

Robert Key: May I warmly welcome the Minister to her new role and urge her to put Stonehenge at the top of her priorities? Since Stonehenge was declared a world heritage site, more than 50 Ministers have had some responsibility for it, which is probably why nothing has happened so far. Will she assure me that she will meet the new roads Minister to discuss the current proposals, the consultation on which ends this month, so that she can make progress on Stonehenge, taking into account not only its international and national significance, but the burden put on local communities by the lack of proper facilities at Stonehenge and the gridlock that occurs there every weekend?

Barbara Follett: I commend the hon. Gentleman; when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in this Department, I had great admiration for his tenacity on this subject. I will indeed do as he asks and meet the Transport Minister responsible.

Gerald Kaufman: In congratulating my hon. Friend on her new role, may I invite her to visit Gorton monastery in my constituency, one of the most superbly refurbished world monuments in this country—

Denis MacShane: Like its MP!

Gerald Kaufman: We've had MacShane: what about Lucan?
	In inviting my hon. Friend the Minister to visit the monastery, may I ask her to consult colleagues about the ludicrous anachronism that prevents civil marriage ceremonies from taking place there, because the Marriage Act 1994 prevents civil marriages from taking place in a former place of worship? In her new role, will she show her dedication to world monuments by consulting colleagues to put that right?

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I would be very happy to visit the monastery. I have a family interest in such matters as my husband writes about them extensively. I will also consult colleagues on the Marriage Act.

Philip Davies: Saltaire is a marvellous world heritage site in my constituency, and the biggest problem that it experiences is congestion at Saltaire roundabout. Does the Minister agree that the regional transport board that decides such matters should take into account the visitor experience at that world heritage site, and will she use her good offices to try to persuade the board that funding for improvement of that roundabout should be a priority?

Barbara Follett: I will indeed. It is a great heritage site, and as a regional Minister I know how important it is to get regional engagement on these matters.

Stephen Hepburn: The Minister's predecessor not only agreed to support the Jarrow-Wearmouth bid for world heritage site status, but agreed to meet a delegation on the issue. May I take it that the Minister will confirm her support for the bid and carry on the commitment to meet the delegation from Jarrow?

Barbara Follett: I am very happy to do so. I seem to be collecting quite a lot of meetings today, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and to confirm my support for the site.

Edward Vaizey: May I also pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who brought huge passion and enthusiasm to her job? I regret that she has left the Front Bench, but my regret is tinged with joy in welcoming the new Minister, who also brings huge passion to the job, as well as a close association with one of the greatest literary figures in this country. We will welcome her contribution over the next few months.
	I invite the Minister to admit that she feels ashamed that, on this Government's watch, seven out 27 of our world heritage sites have been threatened with inclusion on UNESCO's in-danger list. Now we learn that the Government have overruled their own planning inspector on the Doon tower. When will this Government take our world heritage sites seriously?

Barbara Follett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious remarks. I do not think that my husband would describe himself in such terms, but I will convey them to him. I am only proud of what this Government have done and what we intend to do for heritage. Some of the UNESCO reports have been slightly exaggerated.

Football Clubs

Ian Cawsey: What his policy is on the regulation of the governance and ownership of football clubs.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The governance and ownership of football clubs is primarily a matter for football. However, I believe that given the changes in the game in recent years a number of legitimate concerns are being expressed by football supporters and now is the time to have a proper and open debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will shortly meet the football authorities—the Football Association, the premier league, the Football League and others—to discuss the financial regulatory framework of football and a range of issues surrounding the game.

Ian Cawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he will want to join me in passing on our best wishes to Mike Newell, who was announced as Grimsby Town's new manager this morning. The club suffered financial difficulties due to the collapse of ITV Digital and I know that the Minister's own club, Bradford City, has had financial problems, too. In those meetings with football authorities, will the Minister discuss ways in which they can help with the governance of the game to ensure that clubs do not amass crippling debt and that there is greater financial transparency?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which has been raised with me by a number of colleagues in the House and in the other place, as well as in correspondence from a variety of football supporters. The time is right to look at football. On his initial point, I, too, wish Mike Newell well—as an ex-Evertonian he must have some knowledge of the game—and I wish Grimsby Town well. This is a serious subject that affects many football clubs and a great number of people in the country. We want to work with the football authorities and look forward to doing so.

Mark Field: I appreciate that the Minister is a hard-working and committed football fan, but I think that his sense that football can get on and regulate itself is somewhat far from the mark. There is great concern that football needs to get its house in order, particularly given the amount of public money that has gone into the game over the past decade and a half and the fact that we also wish to host the World cup. Those are real concerns that he touched on earlier. Will he ensure that he works closely with his erstwhile colleague, Lord Triesman, who now has an important role in the Football Association, to ensure that more is done and that the high-profile concerns about the football industry are brought to book?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I understand that it is the hon. Gentleman's birthday, so I wish him a happy birthday. We have to consider the key issues, and it is quite interesting to hear from Conservative Members suggestions that we look at more regulation. We have to take the key issues into consideration, and first of all the international bodies—FIFA and UEFA—will play a role.
	We have to appreciate that some work has been done. That done by the conference on early warning systems and financial difficulties has been an important step forward. We want to see transparency, and perhaps we need to look again at the fit and proper persons test. Clearly, the matter has to be the responsibility of football, but we will do what we can to ensure that the concerns of supporters are addressed. The hon. Gentleman will know that the FA has an independent chair as a result of the Burns report, and so movement has clearly taken place.

David Taylor: Given the takeover of Manchester City by a mega-rich plutocrat from a country governed by a hereditary dictatorship and given the dubious source of finances used to buy Chelsea and Heart of Midlothian football clubs, does the Minister agree that now really is the time to regulate the way in which British football clubs are acquired, particularly when they are acquired by people who have become billionaires through corruption, dishonesty or extortion, or all three?

Gerry Sutcliffe: First, I do not think that it matters what the nationality of an individual is. We have examples in the premier league, such as that of Aston Villa, where people are doing well in their ownership of the club and in its development within the community. My hon. Friend touches on the fit and proper persons test, which needs to be revisited. That is one of the issues that we will take up with the football authorities.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for the answers that he has already given. I join him in believing that we need football club owners who really care about the long-term interests of the game. Indeed, the Secretary of State said that more than 10 years ago. In each reply so far, the Minister has said that the football authorities should resolve the issues, including the fit and proper persons test. Does he accept that the premiership has said only recently that the Government and not the football authorities must lay down the rules of ownership for football clubs? What are the Government going to do?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not recall the premiership saying that it wants Government interference, but I will check the record for the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, the country has laws on fit and proper persons, on company directors and on their rights, responsibilities and duties. Yes, there are laws effective on insolvency, and we need to find out whether we can do any more in terms of the laws of the land. But at the end of the day, it is not for the Government to run football. That would be the wrong thing to do, but we are certainly working with the football authorities to ensure that we do everything that is possible. We are ensuring that the concerns of supporters and others are getting across. The Government have supported Supporters Direct, and we have been working with the supporter organisations to ensure that they have a voice.

Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is important to keep his beady eye on Abramovich and all the rest of them, it is probably more important in this world of politics, especially at this time, to ensure that bloated plutocrats such as Lord Ashcroft do not own the Tory party?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I take on enough in dealing with the world of sport. Clearly, the funding of the Tory party is a matter for it, but Lord Ashcroft's donations have not gone unnoticed on the Government side.

Michael Penning: As the Minister knows, I have written to him to express my concerns about the penalties that the football authorities imposed on Luton Town football club. That is clearly a major issue for Luton Town, but it also affects other small clubs around the country. Can the Minister assure me that the same penalties would have been imposed if Luton Town was in the premier league, or is there no level playing field in football these days?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I can understand the frustration of Luton Town fans, particularly as its new owners have done everything by the book. I can understand their feeling frustrated at the number of points that have been deducted, but that is clearly a matter for football and how it operates. However, such concerns have been put to me, and we will take them up with the football authorities.

Television (Access)

Alun Michael: What steps he plans to take to enhance access to television for people with visual impairments as part of digital switchover.

Andy Burnham: Blind or partially sighted people are eligible for the digital switchover help scheme, which provides help with equipment, installation and after-care support. Audio description is accessible through the equipment provided by the scheme.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interest in this subject, particularly in relation to audio description, but is he concerned that the industry's target is 10 per cent. by 2013, whereas awareness of the service has already gone up from 43 to 72 per cent. among people with visual impairment? Is not digital switchover a unique opportunity to ensure that people can get Freeview receivers that include audio description? Will he urge the industry to increase the target to a more realistic level and to do so within months, rather than years, so that my constituents can benefit during 2009?

Andy Burnham: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the determination with which he pursues these issues and for his work with the Royal National Institute of Blind People on these incredibly important matters. He is right to remind us that the digital switchover provides an opportunity to ensure that everyone can enjoy the benefits of digital technology. There are two issues on audio description. One of them is to ensure that it is as easy as possible for people to use. We are currently reviewing the core receiver requirements—the set-top box requirements—to find out whether we can make that easier still, so that we give people single button access to audio description. But he is right to push me and to ask whether more programme makers should include audio description on their services. Although I cannot give him a firm commitment today, I give him a commitment to look again at whether the ambition for programmes to carry audio description can be raised.

John Whittingdale: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the past few months, it has been apparent that a number of people who invested early in digital terrestrial TV set-top boxes to get ahead of switchover have discovered that they now do not work due to the fact that Freeview has changed the technology that it uses? Will he consider whether there is a case for extending the help scheme to any vulnerable or elderly person who suddenly finds that they are faced with black screens as a result?

Andy Burnham: I am aware of the technical problems raised by the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Indeed, I have begun to notice an increasing number of letters on the issue arriving from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree with him that it is somewhat annoying, to say the least, for people who invested in digital technology very early to find that it does not work. I will look closely at the issue, and if he wants to meet to discuss it further, I am happy to do that, too, but it is now very important to maintain people's confidence in the services that they are switching to.

Rosie Cooper: With regard to access, the Secretary of State will be dismayed to hear that my local council has announced that many, if not a majority, of its tenants are likely to be without any access to TV after digital switchover. That is absolutely unacceptable for all my constituents, particularly those who are disabled or who have any sensory impairment. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give—I am not referring to the companies, which are offering a prayer and a promise—that my constituents will not be without a TV signal, and that switchover will not be allowed to happen if huge numbers of people cannot access TV?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. The problem relates to a relay transmitter in the Skelmersdale area, if I am not mistaken. Obviously, we are approaching the switchover point in Granada-land, as we in the area like to call it; I think that a date is to be announced later this month. That should focus the minds of a few Labour Members. Clearly, we have to be sure that we are on top of such issues and that there is a fair solution, so that people can continue to access television services. I am aware of the issues that my hon. Friend raised and I am working through them, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss them further.

Television Licence Fee

Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with the BBC on the level of the licence fee.

Andy Burnham: None. The licence fee settlement announced in January 2007 by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), covers the period from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2013.

Andrew Robathan: By 2013, we may find that the licence fee itself is somewhat out of date. Mr. Speaker, when you and I were boys—not so long ago—the BBC was regarded across the world as the gold standard of broadcasting, but many people now question the regressive nature of taxation through the licence fee. They question whether it gives the BBC an unfair advantage over commercial competitors, not just in the broadcast media but among local newspapers. Notwithstanding the work of the BBC Trust, people question the accountability of the BBC. Does the Secretary of State believe that the BBC gives the licence fee payer value for money, and will he address the concerns that people have raised?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman sounds dangerously off message; it sounds as though he has not done his homework. I am led to believe that one Polly Toynbee is the columnist of choice for those on the Conservative Benches these days, and I am sure that her column is the first thing that he looks for when the papers drop through his letterbox. In  The Guardian today, she says that:
	"at less than the price of a daily newspaper, the BBC remains astounding value."
	I happen to agree with that— [Interruption]—but from the noises on the Opposition Benches, I am beginning to pick up on the fact that the Opposition do not. If they do not, they should make that absolutely plain.

Denis MacShane: Obviously I agree with the Secretary of State's estimation of the BBC, but he should accept that this reactionary and regressive tax, which means that the poorest in the land pay the same as the richest, may no longer be sustainable. I ask him to talk with the BBC, just as we are talking with energy companies and others. If very poor people in my constituency who do not watch the BBC continue to have to fork out for this ever-increasing tax, there will be serious social problems.

Andy Burnham: My right hon. Friend will remember that there was a very thorough debate on the issues when my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood set the new licence fee only a few months ago. All those issues were taken into account. The charter review concluded that, compared with the alternatives, the licence fee continues to be the best funding mechanism for the foreseeable future. Now that there is pressure on commercial public service broadcasting, it is crucial that we maintain a strong BBC as the backbone of our public service broadcasting system. The BBC is an international beacon, and I think that the licence fee is the fairest way to fund a universal service that is widely loved and respected by many.

Angus MacNeil: BBC Alba, an excellent new Gaelic channel, has met with popular acclaim, particularly in my constituency, since it began broadcasting about two weeks ago, on channel 168 on Sky. Will the Minister use his influence with the BBC and the BBC Trust to make sure that the licence fee is used to ensure that the channel is accessible on Freeview as soon as possible?

Andy Burnham: I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will look into that proposal. My Department has been very supportive of the service that he mentioned, and we will continue to support it in whatever way we can. I cannot stand here today and give him a precise answer to his question, but I will look into it.

Topical Questions

Peter Bone: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andy Burnham: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I wish to update the House on important developments announced by my Department since the summer break.
	I have set out the timetable for my review of public service broadcasting, which I will continue to take forward in conjunction with Ofcom, and I am very pleased that Stephen Carter has been appointed to support me in this work. I have also announced that I will commission an independent review of listed sporting events to look again at whether the right sporting events are protected for free-to-air broadcasts, and whether the right balance is struck between the interests of sport and the interests of television viewers.
	We continue to work on the implementation of the McMaster report, including the recommendation to make more arts events free to the public. I recently announced a £2.5 million programme, funded through the spending review by Arts Council England, to give young people under 26 the chance to see free theatre at 95 venues across England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) played an enormous role in that scheme and in the implementation of the McMaster report. I would simply like to echo the very generous comments made by Opposition Front Benchers earlier in Question Time. My right hon. Friend stepped back for family reasons; I am sure that the whole House wishes her well, and wishes the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), well in her new role, too.

Peter Bone: The Wellingborough and District Nene angling club has existed for 139 years, and owns and operates lakes in Northamptonshire. Recently, Natural England slapped an SSSI—site of special scientific interest—designation on it and imposed hundreds of restrictions, which makes the club's viability doubtful. Is it a new Government policy to close angling clubs, or is Natural England out of control?

Gerry Sutcliffe: We fully support angling. Indeed, we have had regular meetings with angling associations. I am pleased that many of those associations have come together in one body, as we start to look at how we can be more supportive in future. Clearly, however, this is an issue, and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and go through it in greater detail.

John Grogan: Given that the Secretary of State said in a speech in June that it was very disappointing that ITV had failed to meet its regional production quotas for two years running, and that that was non-negotiable, was it not an act of defiance for Ed Richards, the boss of Ofcom, last week to suggest reducing that quota from 50 to 35 per cent., particularly given the fact that his predecessor Lord Carter, who is now broadcasting Minister, set the figure of 50 per cent. just three years ago?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a passionate interest in these matters, as do I. I have a strong belief in ITV as a company that has its roots in the regions, and has produced excellent news programmes for many years. He is right: I said I was disappointed because that was a legal requirement, not an optional target. Ofcom is dealing with the matter, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. However, my hon. Friend must recognise, as must Members on both sides of the House, that as the analogue licences wind down and we move towards a new world in broadcasting, which is all multi-channel and fully digital, the basis on which we regulate broadcasters changes and we cannot ask for the same deal in return for access to the scarce spectrum. That is just a fact of where we are, but I think we are all united in saying that we want strong regional output with a range of voices—more than one company providing it—in future, and I will talk to all broadcasters, ITV included, about those very issues in the months ahead.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State will be aware that, should Newcastle and Everton be acquired by private owners in the near future, as is likely, more than half the clubs in the English premiership would be foreign owned, leading the former Sport Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), to refer to that as a tipping point, so that the English game would "cease to be English". Is it not therefore time that the Government ordered a royal commission, or some other inquiry, into the whole stewardship and future of the national sport?

Gerry Sutcliffe: As I tried to say earlier, we want football to resolve these issues. I do not think it is a question of nationality. We can give examples in which foreign nationals do well with some of our premier league clubs. However, I take the point that there are issues that we need to consider, which have been raised by supporters and by many in the House, concerning the governance of the game and concerning early warning systems in respect of financial accountability. A royal commission would be going too far, but we will report to the House the outcome of the discussions that we have with football authorities. Then we can have a debate in the House about the future of the game.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that during the summer the Performing Rights Society carried out a clampdown in certain areas, one of which was Yoker resource centre in my constituency, where the after-school care group was prevented from playing music and DVDs to entertain the children after they came out of school. Will my right hon. Friend look into such cases at Yoker and other centres so that people in deprived areas do not have to fork out an exorbitant amount of money to keep children occupied?

Andy Burnham: I have to say that I was not aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises in relation to his constituency, but I am prepared to look into it. I agree that in general terms we want young people to be able to enjoy music without any barriers.

Jeremy Hunt: Mr. Speaker, may I welcome you back after the recess? I welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), to her post. Her biography states that she is not so much a champagne socialist as a cappuccino socialist. As a cappuccino Conservative, I look forward to many stimulating cups of coffee with her at arts events.  [Interruption.] May I move the discussion on from cappuccino to ask the Secretary of State about the free swimming offer that he announced earlier this summer?
	The Opposition welcome anything that gets more people involved in swimming. What is the Secretary of State's response to the letter that he received this summer from the Labour leader of Stevenage council, the new Minister's constituency, which said that the average cost to a district council of implementing that offer for the over-60s alone would increase council tax by nearly 2 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a categoric assurance that his Department will fund the offer in full and not pass the costs on to hard-pressed council tax payers by the back door, when they are already so concerned about rising bills?

Andy Burnham: I do not know about cappuccino, but there was a certain amount of froth in that question. The hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the package that we proposed. The initiatives began in local government. Many councils have begun to make swimming free for older and younger people. My council, Wigan, has, entirely from its own resources, already put in place a free swimming scheme. We said we would like to help councils to go further, so in support of our objective of getting 2 million more people active by the time of the 2012 games in London, we wanted more councils to offer such schemes to their public. We said all along that it was a challenge initiative and that local authorities could opt into it, should they choose to. Of the 354 eligible local authorities, some 300 have confirmed their participation in the over-60s element of the free swimming programme, and 296 in the under-16s element. It is their decision to take advantage of the scheme. If the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman's council do not wish to take part, that is a choice for them, but Labour and the Government believe in sport for all.

Graham Allen: Will the Minister redouble his efforts in respect of sport as a way of tackling regeneration? Is he aware of the efforts by Sport for Nottingham, part of the local strategic partnership in Nottingham, which is trying to get young people on the outer estates and in the inner cities involved in sport as a means of team building and leadership building? It is already putting considerable effort into that. Will my hon. Friend ensure that sport is undertaken not just at the prestige level but at grassroots level, where it can help with crime, health and many other issues?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing such great leadership in his locality on sport and showing the impact that it can have on people's lives. He is quite right: this is not just about elite sport, important though that is; it is about ensuring strong community sport and strong sport in schools. He will know that we have restructured Sport England so that we can now work with governing bodies to look into whole sport plans. For me and the Government, a key element of that is ensuring that communities benefit from that participation through sport. We are happy to work with my hon. Friend and Sport England to ensure that everybody has access to sport.

Angela Watkinson: Has the Minister seen "Dance Manifesto", which is supported by more than 130 dance organisations across the spectrum, from our wonderful English National Ballet to I Love Salsa? Given the health, social and artistic benefits of dance, what will the Government do to strengthen it as an artistic pursuit?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, because it is ever more popular across the spectrum, as we see in the variety of television programmes about it and about dance fit for young people. The Government are fully supportive. We believe that dance is an ideal tool for making people's lifestyles healthier and improving their self-esteem and confidence. We are working with the dance authorities and with regional partners to ensure that we invest in dance.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering borough council is keen to opt into the free swimming initiative. Although it can already do so for the over-60s, it is unable to do so for the under-16s because it still awaits detailed financial information from the Secretary of State's Department about how the grant funding mechanism will work. That information was due in September, but I understand that Kettering borough council is still awaiting it. Will he ensure that it is released as soon as possible to district authorities?

Andy Burnham: I welcome Kettering borough council's participation in the scheme for older people. My local experience is that not only was there an increase in people going swimming when we made it free for the over-60s, but there was an increase in the secondary income that comes from people using leisure centres and pools more regularly, which is another good source of income for local authorities, so the scheme seems to work. We have been in discussion with local authorities, asking them to opt into the different funding streams. We will give final allocations to local authorities on 15 October, so I am sure that we will be ironing out those issues with Kettering in the next few days. However, I will ensure that we do so, following up the hon. Gentleman's question.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he does not oversee the end of political programming in the regions? Will he now give Ofcom the teeth to ensure that it makes ITV stick to the franchise agreements on which it is currently trying to renege?

Andy Burnham: I know that my hon. Friend appears regularly on Granada's late-night programme—indeed, I look forward to his words of wisdom when I get home on a Thursday evening. He and I are from the same region and we share the same passion for regional broadcasting. As I was saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) a moment ago, as long as there is still value in the licence, it is important that we prioritise news, current affairs and political programming. That comes out loud and clear from Ofcom's research into the issue. I will continue to talk to Ofcom and ITV to ensure a good, strong regional offering in news and current affairs.

Paul Rowen: The Taking Part survey has shown a decline in the number of over-75s taking part in cultural activities. Given that the Government are reviewing their ageing strategy, what steps is the Secretary of State's Department going to take to reverse that decline?

Andy Burnham: We commissioned the Taking Part survey precisely to ensure that we do reach all parts of the community. One of the great things about free entry to museums and galleries over the past 10 years is that it has encouraged more people to use them more regularly. However, we keep such issues under review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall respond in due course to the issue that he raises.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been something of a renaissance in British film recently. Will he guarantee the future of local cinemas, such as the Ritz in Thirsk, which may suffer unfair competition from home entertainment plans?

Andy Burnham: This is a very important issue, and I am sure that it raises strong feelings locally in areas such as Thirsk and elsewhere in the hon. Lady's constituency. The Film Council has given some funds to help to put digital screens into smaller local cinemas, but ultimately I cannot guarantee their future. That is something that it is beyond my power to do, but we do support local cinema and we will engage constructively—as will the Film Council—to ensure that their survival continues.

OLYMPICS

The Minister for the Olympics was asked—

Site Landscaping

Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement about the award of contracts for landscaping for the Olympic site.

Tessa Jowell: Before I answer the hon. Lady's question, I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate Team GB on its extraordinary performance in Beijing in the summer, where it came fourth in the medal table, and also to congratulate the really amazing and uplifting performance and achievement of our Paralympic athletes, who came second in the medal table—a foretaste of what is to come in London in 2012.
	As for the landscaping of the Olympic park, the total budget for landscaping the site is more than £240 million. The Olympic Delivery Authority announced in late September that Edmund Nuttall would be the contractor to manage the delivery of the northern section of the Olympic park. That firm will procure and manage a large number of specialist subcontractors and suppliers, which means that there will be many further opportunities for businesses around the country, through the CompeteFor network, to bid to be part of landscaping the Olympic park.

Anne McIntosh: May I echo the Minister's remarks, and may I also say that the investment and foresight of John Major in creating the lottery for the purpose of the Olympics has been vindicated many times over? Is the Minister aware that the landscaping contracts are subject to environmental constraints—such as all materials needing to be brought to the Olympics site by barge—and does she not think it perverse that a German company is being allowed to contract for the landscaping project in preference to Johnson's of Whixley in Vale of York, and other British companies?

Tessa Jowell: On the hon. Lady's point about the achievement of investment in sport, yes, the lottery has certainly played an invaluable role in funding our athletes, but so too has the sevenfold increase in the funding of Sport England since 1997. On the detail of the contracts that she has raised, and particularly on her specific constituency interest, I shall be very happy to write to her.

Nick Raynsford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that David Higgins and his team in the Olympic Delivery Authority have done a magnificent job in the preparation of the Olympic park, including the environmental work and the soil cleaning, and that it is essential that they should have the maximum freedom to award contracts in a way that will deliver most cost-effectively and successfully? That kind of political interference—suggesting that contracts should be awarded by individual Members of Parliament—is entirely inappropriate to the successful running of the Olympic games.

Tessa Jowell: As I am sure that every Member of the House will recognise, being an advocate for businesses in their local area is entirely legitimate, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that value for money and timeliness will be the criteria by which the award of contracts will be judged.

Hugh Robertson: May I associate colleagues on this side of the House entirely with the Minister's congratulations to our Olympians and Paralympians? She will be aware that the ODA has spent a lot of time touring the party conferences over the past three weeks, warning of the necessary increases in the budget to deal with the current economic situation. However, the landscaping contract, among others, must also be subject to pressures in the opposite direction. Building cost inflation is now lower than it was, and the labour market has eased. Will she arrange for the ODA to present a statement to the House, following her report in July, to show which costs have gone down, as well as showing those that have gone up?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the reporting arrangements that apply, as well as the level of transparency, the three-monthly reports and the regular briefings that are provided to members of the Opposition parties. There is ample opportunity to examine those figures in the way that he suggests, including through the Select Committee, without placing a further burden on the ODA, which is getting on with the job of delivering the Olympic park on time and on budget, and doing it very well.

Paralympic Games

Mark Harper: If she will make a statement on the participation of people with learning disabilities in the London 2012 Paralympic Games.

Tessa Jowell: The Government fully support efforts to see athletes with intellectual disability eligible to compete in the Paralympic Games. I am delighted that the International Paralympic Committee and the International Sports Federation for Persons with Intellectual Disability envisage that that should be possible for the London 2012 games. That is reliant, however, on some additional work in order to ensure full fairness, and I am delighted that the Department is helping to fund that further research.

Mark Harper: I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am sure that she was as heartened as I was by the announcement during the Paralympic games that progress had been made on an objective test so that it could be verified that athletes did indeed have a learning disability. I am sure that she will welcome swift progress towards allowing these people to compete. We both share the vision of having them compete in London 2012, which will be particularly important for those who train at the Forest fitness centre in my constituency. For them, the goal of participating in the London Olympics or Paralympics is indeed inspirational.

Tessa Jowell: I fully recognise that this would be both a popular and fair move—one that I have argued for throughout my long association with the Olympic movement. I very much hope that negotiations will conclude and allow athletes with learning disabilities to take part in the 2012 games.

Andy Reed: Notwithstanding changes in the Olympics and Paralympics and the success that Loughborough has had, will the Minister also recognise the special place of the Special Olympics, which will come to the city of Leicester in 2009? I declare an interest as a board member, but this should not be just a Leicester city or county-wide celebration; it should be a nationwide celebration of people with learning difficulties participating in the Special Olympics.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am quite sure that Leicester will look forward to welcoming the world to the Special Olympics when they are hosted there next year. I look forward to attending them.

Legacy (North-West England)

Ann Winterton: What recent discussions she has had on the Olympics legacy for the north-west of England.

Tessa Jowell: I regularly meet the nations and regions group to ensure that the UK-wide legacy of such an important promise as the 2012 Olympics is delivered in practice. The groundwork for the legacy in the north-west is already in place. The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware of the success of firms in the north-west in procuring contracts for a number of training camps for Olympians and Paralympians. I am also delighted in respect of the broader legacy of greater participation in sport and about the significant number of local authorities in the north-west which have taken up the Secretary of State's proposal to offer free swimming in order to get the north-west fit for 2012.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful for that answer and I can confirm that the Alsager campus of the Manchester Metropolitan university has been selected as a training camp, mainly because it is recognised as the foremost college of sports science and medicine and because it has outstanding facilities. What will be the specific benefits of the Olympic legacy to the north-west, particularly for young people? Will there be more coaches, more volunteers and more opportunities for physical activity? Will the Minister be more specific about the benefits?

Tessa Jowell: I have set out the what the benefits are now—what is happening and what is already in place. The hon. Lady may be interested in attending a briefing on 13 October, at which the Organising Committee and others will set out the legacy in more detail. Having been through the briefing papers on the legacy for the north-west, I will be happy to place a detailed report in the Library. Here on the Floor of the House, I believe Members are on edge to hear more about the financial markets rather than the Olympic legacy for the north-west, but I am happy to provide that information, as I said.

Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that the legacy in the north-west would be greatly enhanced if the Government moved with the same speed as our wheelchair athletes, swimmers and cyclists towards a system of gross profits tax, as suggested on the Liberal Democrat Benches three years ago, as that would enhance the resources available to good causes, not only in the north-west but everywhere else in the country?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although that matter is not entirely straightforward, the Government have reached an agreement to look at it again. It is in everybody's interest that every pound of lottery money is spent to produce maximum public interest, particularly given the commitment to the Olympics.

Financial Markets

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding developments in financial markets to bring the House up to date.
	The events in America over the last few weeks and in Europe over the last few days have again demonstrated the global nature and the sheer scale of the problems affecting the global financial system. What started in America last year has now spread to every part of the world and the disruption in global financial markets has intensified, especially over the last few weeks.
	People are rightly concerned about what is happening, and I have made it clear that we will do whatever is necessary to maintain stability. Along with Governments across the world, I have a responsibility to support a stable, well functioning banking system. Financial transactions are at the heart of everything we do. They allow people to buy goods, pay for services, buy homes, save for pensions and invest, so it is essential that we take action to support the banking system as a whole, as well as being ready to intervene in particular cases where it is necessary to do so. It is not a case of doing either one or the other. Both general support and individual intervention are necessary.
	We need, too, to work with other countries to tackle the causes of those problems, as well as dealing with their consequences. Let me briefly remind the House of what we have done to stabilise the banking system as a whole. Since April, the Bank of England, with support from the Government, has introduced the special liquidity scheme providing funding to the banks. The Government have made available in excess of £100 billion of long-term funding to be lent through the scheme, and the Bank of England has extended it until January. I am willing to make further resources available as necessary and the Governor has made it clear that
	"in these extraordinary market conditions, the Bank of England will take all actions necessary to ensure that the banking system has access to sufficient liquidity".
	The Bank of England has also continued to inject substantial funds into markets through its normal operations, and it will continue to do so. Tomorrow, it will put in another £40 billion, taking in a wider range of security, and those operations will continue into November.
	We also need to deal with specific problems as they arise, to maintain stability. In February, we took special powers to bring Northern Rock into public ownership—now seen by most people as the right thing to do. I can tell the House that Northern Rock has now paid back more than half the taxpayers' money that was lent to it and it continues to repay its loan ahead of schedule.
	In August, I announced that the Government would swap up to £3 billion of outstanding debt for equity, if required, to strengthen Northern Rock's capital position. In September, we amended the competition regime to allow the interests of financial stability to be considered in the proposed merger between Lloyds TSB and HBOS. We took that exceptional measure because financial stability had to come before normal competition concerns.
	Ten days ago, we had to deal with the problems at Bradford & Bingley. We transferred the savings business, the branches and the related jobs to Abbey Santander, protecting savers, and took the rest of the company into public ownership. We acted decisively to protect savers, and also the interests of taxpayers, ensuring that the financial sector bears its share of the costs.
	I have made it clear on many occasions that our priority is to maintain stability and protect the interests of depositors, and safeguard the interests of the taxpayer. I want to set out what we have done so far here at home and also to deal with developments in Europe over the weekend.
	The Financial Services Authority has announced a further increase from tomorrow to the compensation limit for retail bank deposits to £50,000 per depositor, which means £100,000 for joint accounts. That measure will ensure that 98 per cent. of accounts are fully covered. The FSA is consulting on whether to increase that limit further to ensure that arrangements here continue to be comparable with international best practice.
	I have always been clear that each country needs to do whatever is necessary to deal with its own particular circumstances. However, I also believe that, wherever it is possible to do so, countries should work together and act to maintain stability. This afternoon—in the last hour—all 27 European Union member states have reaffirmed the need to take whatever measures are necessary to maintain the stability of the financial system, whether through liquidity support, action to deal with individual banks or enhanced depositor protection schemes. But in the light of what has happened over the weekend, it is especially important that EU member states work far more closely together. So tomorrow I will meet European Finance Ministers in Luxembourg to discuss further how we bring stability to the system and protect depositors.
	This demonstrates that every country in the world—Europe included—is being affected by these problems. In the United States, Congress has now approved measures to support its banking system, which we welcome. Our approach has been different, but what has happened in America emphasises yet again the need for countries to take whatever action they believe is necessary while also working closely together not just to resolve these problems, but to try to prevent them from happening again.
	Later this week, I will attend the G7 and International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington. Our aim is to reduce uncertainty and to improve confidence in financial markets by increasing the openness of financial institutions' exposures. We also want to change and improve the effectiveness of credit rating agencies. These measures are now being implemented, but I believe that we need to move far more quickly.
	Here at home, a number of specific steps are necessary. First, the Bank of England will continue to do whatever it takes to make cash available for banks to lend. Secondly, the banking Bill will be introduced tomorrow, building on the special powers we took in February to allow us to intervene quickly and decisively. It will also give the Bank of England a statutory role to maintain financial stability, to complement the role of the FSA.
	Thirdly, just as at an international level, lessons need to learned. We need to ensure our regulatory system here is up to the mark. It is not about light touch against heavy-handed regulation; it is about making sure that we have the necessary rules in place and that those rules are enforced effectively. I have asked Adair Turner, the new chairman of the FSA, to make recommendations for reforms. As recent events in the financial markets have shown us, regulation should be about liquidity as well as capital. That is why the FSA is considering changes to the liquidity requirements. It is also looking at remuneration structures in the institutions that it regulates.
	Fourthly, we must do everything we can to ensure not only that banks have the confidence to lend to each other, but that lending is maintained to the mortgage market, businesses and individuals. I shall publish Sir James Crosby's recommendations on options for improving the functioning of the mortgage finance markets shortly.
	These are exceptional times, and I am in no doubt as to the size of the task facing us and Governments across the world in bringing order to the financial system. The process of change will necessarily take some time to work through, and because we are dealing with international institutions and international markets, it will require not only action at a national level here, but concerted international action.
	It is right that we look at every aspect—liquidity, capital and regulation—with other countries and of course with the financial sector itself, but it would be irresponsible to speculate on the specifics of future responses. Indeed, providing a running commentary could add uncertainty in already febrile market conditions. But I want to make it clear that all practical options must remain open to us. I have made it very clear that the Government are ready, with the resources and the commitment, to do whatever is necessary, and I will keep the House informed.
	Our priority, at home and abroad, is to bring stability to the financial system, to ensure that depositors and savers are protected, and to defend the interest of the taxpayer. I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: As we see again from today's markets, these are times of great instability for our economy and of great anxiety for the people we all represent. Families are deeply worried about their savings, their homes and their jobs, and it is up to us to try to work together to get the country through this current crisis. I do not think that the British public would thank us if they saw happening here in this House of Commons what everyone saw happening in the American Congress. That is why we offer to look constructively at any proposals brought forward by the British Government.
	For let us be blunt about it: if the banking system fails, it is not just the banks that go bust—businesses fail, families cannot get mortgages, and people lose their jobs, not just in the banks, but across the wider economy. The Prime Minister said that we would never see a return to 15 per cent. interest rates. This week, one of our high street banks has written to many of its small business customers, increasing their interest rate to 15.8 per cent. All of us need to work together to stop Britain sliding from a banking crisis into a deep recession.
	Of course, constructive support does not mean that we are suspending our critical faculties. We will return at a later date— [Interruption.] Oh yes. We will return at a later date to ask how on earth Britain found itself, at the end of this age of irresponsibility, with more personal and public borrowing than any other advanced economy in the world. But today I want to ask the Chancellor about the immediate issues facing the banking system: the issues of confidence, liquidity and capital.
	The Chancellor mentioned the banking Bill. Will he confirm that it will create the Bank of England resolution regime that we think should have been used to deal with Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley? As I told him last week when we met, the Bill will have our support. We also welcome the decision to raise the limit of protection on retail deposits to £50,000. We have been proposing that from the Dispatch Box for almost a year, and it is clearly the right thing to do. Even so, events are moving fast, with the broader guarantees issued first by Ireland and Greece and then by Germany, Denmark and others. Will the Chancellor confirm that none of those countries informed the British Government in advance, and does he agree that it is not helpful for European leaders to call for international co-ordination at summits and then, hours later, to act unilaterally? As he implied in his statement, their confusion is adding to market anxiety today. He is going to ECOFIN tomorrow. What reassurance can he give us that we can avoid descending further into a beggar-thy-neighbour approach that will, in the end, help no one?
	Let me turn to the issue of liquidity. The increasing reliance of our banks on the overnight money markets is creating a hair-trigger effect which leaves individual institutions more and more exposed to events. That must clearly be undone, so we all support the Bank of England's decision to extend funding to the banks from tomorrow—it should address the urgent liquidity problem—but let us be clear about what is happening here. The Bank of England is becoming not just a lender of last resort, but the lender of only resort. Does the Chancellor agree that, in the medium and the long term, that is unsustainable? We need to address not just the symptoms of the crisis but the cause, and that brings me to the issue of capital.
	The cause of this crisis is that we built an economy on a debt-fuelled bubble. Now the bubble has burst, and the debt is being called in. That leaves banks under-capitalised and their balance sheets weak. There are steps that can be taken now to stop, for example, the mark-to-market accounting rules adding to a downward spiral of falling asset values and restricted lending. The Chancellor's immediate reaction when we proposed that was to say that it would make "no difference". Many, many banks disagree with him, and so do many European countries. If he will not accept our argument, will he at least engage with theirs?
	That still does not address the central challenge: the need to recapitalise the British banks. Does the Chancellor agree that that must, in the first instance, mean shareholders' accepting their responsibility? As I said to the Conservative conference, banks that pay out dividends instead of rebuilding balance sheets should be held to account by regulators.
	I know the Prime Minister said when he went to New York that he wanted to handle the crisis on a case-by-case basis, but events have moved on. Does the Chancellor accept that the ad hoc approach is running out of road? No one is expecting the Chancellor to stand up here and speculate on every single option available, but he himself confirmed yesterday that big steps were being considered by the Government. Would it not be irresponsible not even at least to consider more dramatic measures to help our banks, including support from creditors and Government injection of capital? Of course there would have to be very strict conditions to protect taxpayers and ensure that they benefited first from any gain, and we could not contemplate taxpayers' money being used to prop up the kind of salaries and bonuses that we have seen in recent years. We must make sure— [Interruption.] The Chancellor can ask his new City Minister in the House of Lords about that.
	We must make sure that in return for any support the banks start lending again, but in the end, for all the risks to taxpayers involved, there is one thing worse than Government action, and that is inaction in the face of this crisis—for then the far greater risk to the taxpayer and the country is a long and lasting recession. Boom has turned to bust; now bust must not become something worse. That is why Conservatives stand ready to help.

Alistair Darling: I welcome the shadow Chancellor's offer of co-operation and help, especially as he appears to have changed his tune somewhat about what remedies he now thinks are appropriate. I hope that he will now recognise that it is necessary for Governments to play an active role in trying to resolve the problems that we face, in order to produce greater stability as well as to help depositors.
	I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect in particular. Our position is not that one has to choose between generalised measures of support and looking at particular cases case by case. When we were confronted with the problems at Bradford & Bingley 10 days ago, for example, we had to deal with that specific case, because the problems were peculiar to that bank—it was the same for Northern Rock, and different particular issues arose in relation to Lloyds TSB. In addition to dealing on a case-by-case basis, it is necessary to have an overall approach. That is why the special liquidity scheme, which the Bank of England operates, was put in place, and there will be other measures, too.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the Bill, and I hope that we will get support for the measures in it. I very much welcome the fact that he and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, are anxious to ensure that we try to get the legislation on to the statute book by the middle of February next year, when the provisions we made to take Northern Rock into temporary public ownership will expire. That would be extremely helpful and useful.
	So I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), although I notice that his tendency to lapse into points-scoring and party politics did not take long to reappear. I must make this one point to him in passing: our interest rates are 5 per cent. now, and while people obviously have their views on that, they compare rather favourably with the 15 per cent. interest rates that we had some 15 years ago.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to raise some perfectly pertinent points, which I want to deal with. First, in relation to guarantees and what happened over the weekend, as far as I am aware no Government—nor the European Commission—was made aware of what the Irish Government were proposing to do last week. I took up that matter with Brian Lenihan, the Irish Finance Minister, and he explained that they did that because, in their judgment, they needed to take action because of what was happening in Europe. I understand that, but it demonstrates the problems that arise when member states take unilateral action, because, of course, it has a knock-on effect for other member states. Similarly, Germany announced action yesterday. As I understand it, Germany has made a declaration that is not legally binding; it is a political declaration about guarantees.
	This emphasises the need for us all to work together, which is why from last night we have been working with the French presidency to get a declaration from all member states—a pledge to work together, to act together. As I said, that statement was finally agreed just an hour ago. I very much hope that when we meet in Luxembourg tomorrow we will agree that, whatever is done, European member states act together. That is very important; otherwise, we will end up with a situation that is confusing not just to depositors, but to institutions themselves.
	On the hon. Gentleman's points about accounting rules, the European Union is looking at that. On Friday, the International Accounting Standards Board said that it would look at the lessons to be drawn from what has been happening in markets, to see whether any changes ought to be made and also to make sure that we do not find that European and American rules start to diverge. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that it would be a huge mistake to assume that changing the accounting rules would sort out the problem. Especially at this time, markets want to know exactly what is going on, and they do not want to think that the situation has apparently improved simply because the ways in which things are accounted for are different. That issue is not somehow a "get out of jail free" card; it needs to be looked at, but it does not provide the answer that the hon. Gentleman might have been suggesting.
	Finally, on capital, I said in my statement that we stand ready to look at the issues of liquidity, capital and regulation. They all need to be looked at, and we are ready to do whatever is necessary. I also went on to say—here, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that we saw from what happened in the United States that nothing is worse than coming forward with a plan that is not sufficiently developed and about which questions cannot be answered, which resulted in some $1.5 trillion being lost over the 10 days that followed. I am determined that when we take action, we take it quickly, we take it decisively and it works. That is what I am determined we will do.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Chancellor for his statement. I do not think that any of us envy him for the very considerable weight of responsibility that rests on his shoulders, and we are going to have to work together in the common interest. There will be a time to decide who made mistakes, but the issue now is: have we moved forward?
	The Chancellor said that he will do whatever he has to do in the financial crisis. He is right, and I hope that he will, but there are some issues that need clarifying. In the wake of the apparent German decision to give a complete guarantee for all deposits in the German banking system, it seems to us that the British Government will indeed have no alternative but to give a comparable assurance to people in the British retail high street banks. We all know that our bank deposits are safe. Some of my own modest savings are in the Bank of Scotland and some are in the Royal Bank of Scotland, so I am more than usually dependent on both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and on the First Minister of Scotland not to let me down. However, there are anxieties. People have anxieties about specific questions such as merged banks, large deposits during house sale transactions and small independent businesses, and there needs to be more clarity about the guarantees than the Financial Services Authority has currently given.
	Secondly, the Chancellor said in his statement that he is pursuing a case-by-case approach. He is right, and we have no quarrel with what he did in relation to Bradford & Bingley and HBOS-Lloyds—that seemed to be the right approach. However, we are now in a different situation, where banks are being picked off one by one. I set out proposals yesterday, and the Conservative leader said something rather similar this morning— [Interruption]—about the need for recapitalising the banks with a form of partial nationalisation. I hope that the Chancellor will confirm that those specific ideas are under active discussion.
	Finally, I would like to say a little bit about interest rates. Of course, the issue is about the availability of credit, but it is also about official interest rates and the implications for mortgage borrowers and small businesses. I have been a very strong advocate of the independence of the Bank of England; I made my maiden speech about it in this House 10 years ago. Does the Chancellor not think it appropriate, in emergency conditions, to make it absolutely clear that the mandate of the Bank of England must include responsibility for averting a meltdown in the financial and economic system? Those members of the Monetary Policy Committee who are going around saying that the problems go no further than the financial system need a line of communication back to planet earth. We do need to be thinking about radical cuts in interest rates.
	I know that the Chancellor has said that my comments on this subject are dangerous, and I recognise the dangers. These are very dangerous times, and decisive decisions are going to have to be taken over the next few days and weeks to safeguard millions of jobs and homes. I hope that the Chancellor will give us the leadership that we need on those issues.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and for the fact that on many occasions over the summer he indicated his support for the general approach that the Government are taking. He asked three main questions, one of which related to guarantees. As I said earlier, I think it desirable that European member states act together. If the House looks at the statement that all 27 member states signed up to earlier this afternoon, it will see that there is a commitment there to work together, and it is important that we work together. We have the FSA announcement that it will increase the amount covered to £50,000, and as I said, that covers 98 per cent. of all accounts.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned liquidity and capital. May I emphasise to him that, as I said in my statement, I believe that we must look at three elements? First, we must ensure that there is adequate liquidity in the system. That is absolutely essential, which is why I welcome what the Bank announced this week and the fact that it is looking at providing facilities for far longer than is usual. The problem is not just an immediate one. He rightly says that we need more liquidity, because without it we cannot move to the second phase. I have also said that we need to look at regulation and at issues such as capital, and we will do so; when I have proposals to make, I shall come back to the House to set them out.
	Finally, on interest rates, I do not think that I ever said that the hon. Gentleman is dangerous—whatever else he is, that is not quite the right description—but I think that in this case he is just wrong. If one establishes an independent central bank, distant from government, I do not think that one should change its terms of reference just because times are difficult. I should just remind him and the House of what the Bank of England Act 1998 says. The objectives of the Bank of England are
	"(a) to maintain price stability, and
	(b) subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government, including its objectives for growth and employment."
	I do not see any need to change that remit.

Linda Riordan: There is much concern and anxiety in Halifax about the uncertain future of HBOS, which is the second largest employer in the town. Will the Chancellor guarantee that he will do all he can to safeguard these jobs and give a commitment that Halifax and other HBOS locations will be on a level playing field?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend has already raised with me the question of jobs in her constituency and the surrounding area. I understand that the future of HBOS and the developments at Bradford & Bingley mean that a much wider area is affected. I hope that HBOS and Bradford & Bingley will do everything possible to try to maintain jobs and to help people for whom there will not be jobs in the future to get jobs elsewhere. I have met the regional development agency and the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). We are determined to do everything we can to help people through what is undoubtedly a very difficult time. I know, from my conversations with them, that HBOS and Lloyds are acutely aware of the impact on employment in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that she will continue to do everything she can for her constituents, as she has done ever since the announcement.

Philip Davies: I know that the Chancellor understands the impact on the wider local economy of what has happened to both HBOS and Bradford & Bingley, and I sincerely appreciate the fact that there will be no compulsory redundancies at Bradford & Bingley for six months—that has been welcomed.
	Many employees were also small shareholders in Bradford & Bingley, and many of them loyally supported their company through a recent rights issue in order to try to save the business. I understand that the business had £1.5 billion of equity at the time of nationalisation and that the sale of the savings side raised £400 million. The expected losses on the mortgage book are independently assessed to be about £1 billion. That leaves about £800 million, which, split between 1.6 billion shares, works out at about 50p a share. Does he recognise those figures? Can he give the House some idea of what might happen to those small shareholders?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is understandably concerned about jobs in his constituency. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan), we will work with Yorkshire Forward and the company to see what we can do. I am glad that he also recognises the fact that we were able to provide funding to ensure that people will be employed for six months. That will help, although the situation is clearly difficult. The problem with Bradford & Bingley was that its model just did not work. It tried, as did we, right up until last Saturday to find a commercial solution—or even an approaching commercial solution—but we could not do so.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly asks about shareholders. We sold the branches and transferred the deposits to Abbey Santander, and the money from that will go into the pot. However, we also had to transfer and finance some £20 billion of deposits. That amount, which is due to the Government, will be reduced in time as the assets of Bradford & Bingley are realised and mortgages repaid. I cannot say what those assets will realise, or when; it will take years to repay some of them. Some of the buy-to-let mortgages might be worth something in a few years' time, although they are not worth much just now.
	I cannot say at this stage how much, if anything, will be left. I understand the position, because it is exactly the same as that with Northern Rock: people who were not big-time share dealers, but who lived locally, thought that they were doing the right thing in buying shares to support their local company, but then the company failed. We will do what is right, but at this stage it is impossible to say what, if anything, will be left at the end of the day. The bank has a lot of assets that, frankly, are not worth much at all.

Frank Dobson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his steady and careful approach to this catastrophic situation and on trying to avoid it becoming more of a catastrophe. I welcome his commitment to improved regulation of the City, so that people's homes and jobs are not imperilled by banks that were so stupid in making their complex arrangements that they could not distinguish between liabilities and assets; by firms of auditors that apparently did not spot that anything was wrong; and by ratings agencies that gave AAA ratings to spurious transactions, apparently unaware of the fact that the pieces of paper involved were worse than worthless. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my assurance, on behalf of every Labour Member, that we will support improved regulation even if the Tory party—the political wing of the banking industry—opposes it and speaks out against regulation.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is necessary to have a regulatory system that is robust. As I said earlier, it is not a question of light touch versus heavy-handed regulation. We will not pursue a knee-jerk reaction, but it is important that we avoid situations such as those experienced in the US—but by no means the US alone—in which banks were able to incur substantial risks, apparently without people at the top of the bank being fully aware of just how exposed they were. Nor do we want a repeat of the situation in which regulators, who were concentrating—for understandable reasons—on solvency, did not pay enough attention to the question of liquidity. Across the world there are lessons to be learned. Changes will be necessary, and I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support in that regard.

Kenneth Clarke: In the light of the Bank of England's statement about the special liquidity scheme and the Chancellor's statement today, is it right to assume that the Government now accept that the Treasury must support the Bank in providing just as much liquidity as is necessary on the widest possible class of assets as security for as long as is necessary, until the money markets start to function again and inter-bank lending is resumed? It is obvious that banks will not resume lending normally to businesses or households until there has been some recapitalisation. As there is open speculation about the Government using taxpayers' money to take a stake, will the Chancellor accept that he needs to come to a decision rapidly on that issue to bring the speculation and uncertainty to an end and enable us to move towards a more normal banking system?

Alistair Darling: I agree that speculation can be harmful, which is why everyone has to be careful about what they say and when they say it. It is important that when we have proposals to make—whether on liquidity, regulation or capital—we make them as soon as possible, consistent with having proposals that are fully developed and ready to be implemented. As I said in my statement, it is also important to discuss the matter—as we did the special liquidities scheme—with the financial services industry, where appropriate, so that we ensure that whatever we do achieves what we all want, which is to begin to bring about a situation whereby we can return to sensible lending and where banks will start to lend more freely to individuals and to businesses.
	In relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points about the special liquidities scheme, I have always said that we have never set a cap on the amount that the Government are prepared to make available. Although the scheme will run for three years, we will keep that under review. I am determined to do everything we possibly can to stabilise the present situation and to make improvements so that we can get out of the difficulties that we face. The special liquidities scheme is an essential part of that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can rest assured that I will do whatever it takes to ensure that it works and that it does so effectively.

Mark Todd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 100 per cent. deposit guarantees by the taxpayer that appear to be on offer in some major economies—he will need to be careful with his comments on this subject—are harmful and mistaken as policy instruments in this respect? They will encourage a huge moral hazard in the banking industry unless they are backed up with incredibly intensive regulation, which will stifle innovation and growth.

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, it is far better—especially in Europe where so many banks have branches and subsidiaries in many different countries—that any action that is taken is taken together. I have always made it clear that countries need to do whatever they think is appropriate to look after those institutions for which they are directly responsible, but working together is very important. Ironically, the summit called by President Sarkozy in France on Saturday pledged each of the participants to working together. We need to get back to that, because it is the best way to try to resolve the matter.

Ian Paisley: I am sure that the whole House will realise the very terrible times that we are in. I remember being a lad in Ulster and the soup kitchens, the poverty and the terrible happenings that took place. We must all, in our own way, do what we can to help one another to get some way through this very dark hour for our nation. I know that there are many beliefs in this House; my belief in God is well known and my religious convictions are known. I trust that our whole nation will turn in repentance and cry to God for an intervention so that the calamity will not come on our children and on the babes in their cots.

Alistair Darling: I think that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the need to work together. I am not as well qualified as him to comment on whether divine intervention can help us, but I think that Governments and financial institutions both have a huge role to play. Governments can make a difference and they need to make a difference, precisely to ensure not only that we stabilise the situation but that we get through it.

Nigel Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend rule out a straitjacket on the Bank of England giving long-term help to banks if necessary and if it is decided on over the course of the next few weeks, months and perhaps even years? Will he also remember that when interest rates hit 15 per cent. and above, small businesses were paying 25 per cent., which is why so many of them, sadly, went bust?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right on that last point. We need to recall from time to time exactly what happened in the past when interest rates went way up—the consequences were devastating. That is all the more reason to ensure that we take the right action, including supporting the Bank of England. I have made it clear, as has the Governor of the Bank, that we will do whatever it takes and whatever is necessary. We will do that because it is essential if we are to ensure that money is available in future not just to individuals, to enable them to buy houses and to invest, but to businesses. British businesses depend to a large extent on their banks, and it is important that we do everything we can to ensure that banks remain in a position to lend to them, because without that lending those businesses would be in difficulty.

Iain Duncan Smith: I recognise that the Chancellor will have difficulty in answering a number of these questions, but I wonder whether I can return him to Germany's statement about protection for its depositors. At the Dispatch Box, the Chancellor mentioned, quite rightly, that our protection covers about 98 per cent. of all depositors, but he will also recognise that we have significantly more money on deposit than Germany does. The reality is that that 2 per cent. represents a very significant amount of money. What concerns me right now is that, given the febrile nature of the markets—watching little things and then panicking—if they see any flight of capital, even that 2 per cent., towards Germany, it could cause another stampede and another crisis. I recognise the Chancellor's problem about indicating what he may or may not do, but does he not recognise that that 2 per cent. alone is perhaps enough to tip over the markets if they saw a flight of that money to, say, Germany or even Ireland?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was making earlier: difficulties arise if different countries do different things at different times, and we should do our level best to try to avoid that.

George Mudie: I make a plea to the Chancellor that, when he speaks about protecting the taxpayer and depositors, he continues to include customers or borrowers. The whole House understands the importance of helping the banking and finance industry on the grounds of stability, but the sight of the same banks calling in loans to small businesses and making many thousands of good people homeless by making their mortgages unaffordable is totally unacceptable. If we are prepared to have a lifeboat for the finance industry, it should be prepared to participate in a lifeboat for its customers.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point. It is important to remember when we talk about stability and the whole financial system what it actually means to people with houses or people who have businesses who depend on the ability to borrow money. In relation to people who get into difficulty with mortgages, we have been working very closely with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others to ensure that there is a rigorous code of conduct, so that banks do everything that they possibly can to help any customer who might be getting into difficulty. Exactly the same thing applies to businesses. Of course, one of the other things that we are doing is working with the European Investment Bank to ensure that the substantial sums of money that are made available find their way through our banks into the hands of small businesses.

John Maples: This is the worst problem that any Chancellor of the Exchequer has faced for a very long time indeed, and I am sure that the whole House wants to be able to support him in whatever proposals he makes to deal with it. He has done a lot on the liquidity front, but he has done relatively little, if anything, on the capital adequacy front. I urge him to address that problem fairly quickly, because such things get worse if they are allowed to drift on. I hope that he will consider the concept of supporting direct injections of capital, as opposed to what the United States did in buying bad assets at a premium in the market, which is a complicated way of doing the same thing. However, I also urge him to take another look at the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, which we will debate this afternoon and which will have the effect of extracting £400 million or £500 million of the banks' safest and most solid deposits and putting the money into a reclaim fund for good causes. Could we not start by allowing the banks to convert that to some form of capital security? The reclaim fund could still hold the money and distribute it to good causes in due course. That Bill was conceived when the situation was very different from now, and I urge him that that is at least a way to start to make some form of contribution to the capital of banks and that he should propose do to that in Committee.

Alistair Darling: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Of course, the proposal on dormant assets in the Bill that we will debate this afternoon is a long-term measure, but I am sure that he will want to return to such measures, perhaps during Second Reading, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be happy to respond.

Peter Hain: I commend the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for their calm and authoritative leadership, but global political leaders and central bankers seem to be behind the curve, as the financial crisis spreads rapidly into the real economy. Does he agree that it is no longer simply a question of sub-prime versus prime, but about asset quality in infrastructure, businesses, commercial and other property and even car loans and so on? In addition to the special banking powers that he is taking, will he consider legislating to enable reserve powers over infrastructure—rail, vital utilities and similar things—in case they fall into serious problems, as I fear they might, so that we are not behind the curve but ahead of the game, with those powers sitting ready to be taken, perhaps involving stakeholdings, recapitalisation and other matters and procedures that might prove necessary?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support, and I agree that it is important that all of us—Governments, central banks and regulators alike—keep an eye firmly on problems that might arise in future. I also agree that it is important to ensure that investment, especially in transport infrastructure, continues; I feel very strongly about that, for reasons that he will understand. That is why I am pleased that our Government have been able hugely to increase the amount of money that they are spending on transport infrastructure, and why it is important that, in what will undoubtedly be a difficult time, we ensure that investment does not suffer. Long-term investment in infrastructure is very important.

Stewart Hosie: I agree with the Chancellor that we should consider every aspect of the issue, including liquidity, capital and regulation, and I would add confidence and stability to that list. I very much welcome his saying that "all practical options must remain open to us". I understand that he will not speculate on his final plan, whether it be enhanced deposit protection, a guarantee of all sterling deposits—that is our favoured option—or an extension of the list of assets against which banks can borrow. May I recommend, as a matter of urgency, that he finalises his plan and makes a firm, detailed, comprehensive statement about the actions that the Government intend to take? Otherwise, as regards confidence and stability, the Government will be seen to be buffeted by events, and to be merely reacting. I am calling for a proactive statement and a detailed plan—a comprehensive set of measures to provide stability and confidence. Will he draw up that plan, and set it out in a single, comprehensive statement?

Alistair Darling: What I have done this afternoon is set out for the House what we have done so far, in order to provide the House with an opportunity to question me about developments over the summer. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: there are further things that we need to do, and I will come before the House to announce them as soon as I am ready to do so.

John McDonnell: Does the Chancellor agree that recapitalisation when property values are falling increases the risk to taxpayers and will prove ineffective, and that we therefore need the Bank of England advisory committee to recommend a significant decrease in interest rates in its recommendations this week? In addition, recapitalisation could start the round of speculation off again, so will he assure the House that he will stand ready with plans for nationalisation of the banks, if necessary?

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, I have nationalised two banks in the past year. Ten years ago, I would never have thought that I would be able to say that to him.

George Osborne: Or 20 years ago!

Alistair Darling: Not even 20 years ago. On my hon. Friend's point about interest rates, I do not think that I can add anything to what I said to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberals.

Malcolm Bruce: Some of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches anticipated at least some of the problems, and were concerned about the fact that the regulatory authorities did not clamp down on the excessive unsecured credit that was put into the marketplace; that put pressure on financial services in London and Edinburgh, and it is that pressure that is causing us so much trouble.
	Moving on, may I pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)? The Chancellor said that he thought that the remit of the Bank of England required no amendment, but can he really stand by that when inflation, which is the overriding concern, is outside the target? Does he not accept that it would be desirable temporarily to set aside the requirement on the Bank, so that the Government can deal with the crisis today? I campaigned for an independent Bank—he did not—and I believe that independence is right, but the parameters have to be right. Would it not be good to ensure a cut in interest rates, so that we can get the economy going and get banks lending again, and a cut in taxes to help people deal with rising costs?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman may have campaigned for an independent central Bank, but I was part of the Treasury team that legislated to put the measures in place. To be fair, the Liberal Democrats have been consistent on the issue, and did support an independent central Bank. However, if they are to be consistent, they should not, for goodness' sake, ask for a change of rules when things get difficult.

Geoffrey Robinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have acted decisively and with great expediency on the issue, and will continue to do so? On interest rates, will he confirm whether my recollection is correct: is it not right that, although it will rightly be enshrined in statute that it is part of the Bank's responsibility to maintain financial stability, it is his responsibility as Chancellor to set the interest rate? It is then the Bank's responsibility to maintain that rate through the appropriate monetary and other policies. If that is the case, as I think it is, it is still for him, as an appropriate and necessary part of his normal functions as Chancellor, to set that rate. Will he bear that in mind in the months ahead, which are bound to be very difficult?

Alistair Darling: It is my responsibility to set not the interest rate but the inflation target, which is something that is done at the Budget every year. As I said, both in the House today and on previous occasions, I think that targeting inflation is important. Inflation has been a huge problem for this country in the past, and I believe that the Bank's present remit, both in relation to its inflation target and, subject to that, to its broader objectives, is the right objective.

David Curry: We have not seen a Northern Rock-type run on the banks—mercifully—but is the Chancellor aware that there is still huge confusion on the high street? There are a lot of people trying to shuffle money, and wondering whether they ought to do so, between institutions, to find some sort of safe haven. Should we not be grateful to building societies such as Skipton and the other five Yorkshire societies that have remained mutual societies? If I may make a suggestion to the Chancellor, perhaps he might talk a little less about systems, and a little more about people, because the anxiety spreads to every level of society, and the one question that they want answered is, "Is my money safe?" The sooner that he can answer that, the quicker we will get calm on the marketplace.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what matters is people, and one reason why the FSA, with our strong support, increased the upper end of the compensation limit to £50,000 for an account holder was precisely to provide additional security, which is very important. He made a point about building societies, especially those that did not demutualise, and I understand why he did so, because I think that I am right in saying that all the building societies that demutualised have either been taken over or, sadly, are no longer with us.

Stuart Bell: The Chancellor of the Exchequer touched on this briefly, but may I congratulate the Prime Minister on his initiative in Paris at the weekend, in saying that the European Investment Bank should release £12 billion to £14 billion to the small and medium-sized business sector, with a further £12 billion to £14 billion coming later on? Building on the Chancellor's response to my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) and for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), is not this sector the most important sector in the country, and can we say, building on the point made by the shadow Chancellor, that if the banks are not lending to one another, at least they should lend to that sector at reasonable rates?

Alistair Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that small businesses in particular, as well as other businesses, can get access to the money that they need. The initiative to which the Prime Minister referred at the weekend from the EIB is very important. I had discussions with its managing director a couple of weeks earlier in France, and it is important that that money is not only released, which it will be, but that businesses in this country can get it through the banking system. I hope that we will have something to say in the not too distant future that will help with that.

Peter Lilley: Does the Chancellor agree that guaranteeing all deposits, although it may well prove necessary, is at best a sticking plaster, not a cure for the underlying disease, which is that the value of loans made by banks, and even more of the collateral that they have accepted, has fallen below their obligations and their ability to meet them from reserves? If he is not to have to make that good himself, he must provide incentives for those banks to raise new reserves. Will he consider guaranteeing the proportion of reserves newly raised from this date in the event of any subsequent reconstruction in which the state is involved?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is right. If we look at the fundamental causes of the problem, we see that banks took on risks that either they did not evaluate or, if they did, they did not take enough steps to ensure that they could withstand any fall in assets. That is something that we need to look at, and it is something that the regulators need to look at.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations, as the constituency MP for many Halifax Bank of Scotland employees? We were grateful for the work that the Prime Minister and he did in arranging a marriage between HBOS and Lloyds TSB, but on reflection, would it not have been a better option to part-nationalise HBOS to keep its integrity and independence and to keep the jobs, rather than creating a vast monopoly—a third of the market—which will come back to haunt consumers and those of us who represent Yorkshire constituencies? The bank is, after all, the largest private employer in Yorkshire.

Alistair Darling: I am very aware of the importance of HBOS as an employer in Yorkshire, but if it is possible to reach a commercial solution to problems, that is by far the best route to pursue. A commercial decision was taken by HBOS and Lloyds TSB. Yes, we intervened to waive the competition rules that would otherwise have stopped it, but as I said in relation to Northern Rock a year ago—at that time many people believed that the best option was to try to find a commercial solution, but it did not work at the end of the day—one day even Northern Rock will have to be returned to the private sector. I do not think the Government can run banks particularly effectively, and I do not think that is desirable. If we can get a commercial solution in relation to these matters, that is far better, and it is what is proposed in this particular case.

Peter Tapsell: Has the Chancellor studied the history of the Japanese economic crisis of the 1990s, where the failure of that Government to reduce interest rates in a timely manner led to a prolonged recession, which lasted for a decade?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I have, and yes, I am aware of that. Thank you.

Harry Cohen: The Chancellor told me in the summer that he had regular secret meetings with the top bankers. They seem to be coming with a begging bowl, which has been rewarded with massive liquidity. What has he got from them in return—for example, to deal with the fat-cat bonuses and pay-offs that they have had?

Alistair Darling: I do not think I told my hon. Friend that I had secret meetings with the bankers. If I did, it clearly would not have been a secret any more. It is no secret that I meet people from the banking industry on a fairly regular basis. Indeed, people would be surprised if I did not. On my hon. Friend's other point, yes, of course there is concern about the way in which employees were paid or incentivised. Many people are concerned that employees were paid bonuses to take on risks which, it turned out, did not just put the individual employer or their bank at risk, but put everybody else at risk at the same time. That must change.

Susan Kramer: Does the Chancellor agree that without in any way compromising the independence of the Bank of England, he could put into abeyance the inflation target for a period, and therefore allow the bank to take the steps necessary to prevent the present crisis from spilling over into the rest of the economy? Our experience so far has shown that the idea that financial crises could be contained is holed below the waterline, and that the inevitable consequences of not stemming overspill will be detrimental to just about everybody in the country.

Alistair Darling: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. As I have said before, the remit given to the Monetary Policy Committee is wide. It was designed for the good times as well as the more difficult times. To chop and change it would undermine the idea and principles that underpin the concept of an independent central bank.

Frank Field: How are the Government measuring the danger to the British economy if, when trying to pursue a policy across Europe, we find that we are, for example, the last Government to offer 100 per cent. guarantees to individual savers with deposits in British retail banks? Will he give a guarantee that we will not find ourselves in that position?

Alistair Darling: We are not in that position. I said earlier that if action is taken, there is much to be said for having a discussion about these matters and acting in a way that avoids the distortions that I referred to. That is one of the things that we will be discussing tomorrow.

Brian Binley: The Chancellor may not know, but I can tell him that many small businesses will be disappointed with his statement today. They are facing increasing debt, including massively increased bad debt, and are under tremendous cash-flow pressures. They go to their banks, but their banks are not being helpful; in fact, they are increasing interest rates. Will the Chancellor give the small business sector some confidence today, by saying that he will go to the banks and ensure not only that small businesses get their fair share of the guarantees being given, but that banks will cut interest rates to them?

Alistair Darling: I think that I have said on a number of occasions this afternoon that there is concern in all parts of the House about the impact that the credit crunch is having on businesses. That is why it is important that banks and Governments act together to try ensure that we help small businesses, whether directly or through the European Investment Bank or other such measures. That is what I want to do.

Jim Cousins: Does the Chancellor recognise that the markets are in a panic because the authorities are seen to be losing control of events? The right place for the risks of a rescue is not the balance sheets of national Governments, which are there to help the less well-off, not the super rich. Tomorrow he must go to Europe and get a Europe-wide run-off and rebuild facility that can really bear the strain of events and put the authorities across Europe back in control of the situation, not running constantly behind.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for Governments not just to deal with day-to-day events, but to anticipate them and try to restore the calm to which he referred. That said, there are some things that can be achieved on a Europe-wide level, but there are other areas where that might prove more difficult. He may be aware that the Dutch Government came up with a proposal for a pan-European solution that, as far as I can see, has not attracted a great deal of support from the rest of the European Union. However, it is important that if we can take action together, we should do so. If that is not possible, we should redouble our efforts—our Government and other Governments of like mind—to ensure that we do precisely what he suggests: to anticipate and deal with some of the problems that we know are there or which are coming towards us.

Patrick Cormack: As we address such issues in this place, should we not bear in mind that the crisis has been exacerbated because, during the summer, people in high places consistently forgot that there is no situation that is not made worse by panic?

Alistair Darling: I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman, so I will leave it at that.

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: Will Members wishing to take their seats please come to the Table?
	 The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
	John Fingland Mason Esq., for Glasgow, East.

Orders of the Day

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill  [Lords]

[Relevant documents:  The Eleventh Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2006-07, Unclaimed  assets within the financial system, HC 533, and the Government response, HC  1028, Session 2006-07 .]
	 Order for Second Reading read.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), the former Economic Secretary, for all her hard work in developing the Bill and supporting its progress, and welcome to the Treasury Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), the new Economic Secretary, who will be taking the Bill through Committee.
	The Bill implements the commitment in the Labour party's 2005 manifesto to channel unclaimed financial assets back into the community. It has already been through the other place, where it received broad cross-party support as well as extensive debate, and I hope that we will see that cross-party support continued here. The purpose of the Bill is to enable what are effectively lost assets to be put to use in supporting the community while ensuring that, should their former owners discover them again, they can still get them back.
	We begin our deliberations in this place in a rather different financial climate from that in which we started, and I am sure that the changing circumstances will form part of our deliberations here and in Committee. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has already raised this matter with the Chancellor today, in the course of the discussions on the statement. It is important to recognise that the Bill is not about tackling today's market conditions; it is about the future, and about laying the foundations for a scheme that will be in place in mid-2009 at the earliest. The scheme will be voluntary, and it has been brought forward with the full support of the industry.

John Maples: The point that I was making earlier was that, although the Bill is well conceived—I have no objection to the idea of taking dormant deposits and spending them on good causes—it was, as the Chief Secretary has acknowledged, conceived in a very different banking environment. One of the problems that the Chancellor is trying to deal with is the capital adequacy of the banks, and there will probably be a need for some public sector injection in that regard. Between now and the Committee stage, will the Chief Secretary consider whether it would be sensible to allow this money to be used temporarily for that purpose, so that the reclaim fund would own shares—be they convertible notes or preference shares in the banks—that could buy capital for the banks? In due course, when the banks' situation has improved, the reclaim fund could then sell the securities or redeem them in order to use the money for good causes. In the meantime, however, I think that the public will find it odd that we are going to take £500 million off the banks to spend on good causes, when it could be used to bolster their balance sheets.

Yvette Cooper: I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. First, the Bill will not come into force until next year and it will obviously take time to set up the reclaim funds, so his proposals would not address the current market conditions that the banks are facing. Secondly, this will be a voluntary scheme, so it will be for the banks and building societies to choose to participate. In the discussions that we have had with the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association, they have made clear their continued support for the scheme, and said that they are continuing to encourage their members to participate and believe that they are keen to do so, even in the current market conditions. It is also important to recognise that the assets and liabilities will both be transferred to the reclaim fund, which will obviously have a rather different outcome in regard to the impact on the capital position. As I have already said, however, the changing climate and the credit crunch will obviously be part of our deliberations in Committee in regard to lessons that can be learned to ensure that we get the detailed legislation right.
	I would also like to point out that, according to the banking sector, the banks estimate that their dormant assets represent less than 0.07 per cent. of the £535 billion held in retail banking and savings by the UK's nine largest groups. Although that is a small proportion of their retail banking, that money could make a real difference to projects in the community.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister confirm that that figure is £5 billion, which is not chickenfeed? Can she tell us when she was given the advice by the banks that they were happy to proceed with this plan? Was it given in the past 24 hours, or is it two weeks old?

Yvette Cooper: No, it is not £5 billion; that would be 1 per cent. of £535 billion. I was talking about 0.07 per cent., the figure in the banks' estimates. Also, may I again make it clear that this will be a voluntary scheme?
	The banks estimate that they have between £250 million and £350 million in accounts that are lying dormant and have been untouched for more than 15 years, and sometimes much longer. The building societies estimate that they have a further £130 million in the same position. The evidence shows that some people forget about or lose track of often small deposits of money in bank or building society accounts—perhaps because they changed address or lost contact with their banks, or because the account holder has died without anyone being made aware of the money.

Susan Kramer: The Chief Secretary will be aware that many of these dormant accounts are, in fact, owned by charities, having been left to them through legacy. However, there are very few mechanisms for identifying the accounts and reclaiming the money. Will she bring in some structure that will enable them to do so under the legislation?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady is right that we should do everything possible to reunite the money with the original account holder, whether it be a charity, an individual or whatever. That is an important part of the legislation. Customers always have the right to reclaim their money, but we also think it important to make a concerted effort to reunite account holders with their lost money before the scheme comes into operation. We have encouraged the financial services to do that and we welcome the launch by the British Banking Association, the Building Societies Association and National Savings & Investments of the "mylostaccount" website in January this year. More than 175,000 people have already used this free cross-industry service to reunite themselves with tens of millions of pounds. It is an important part of the scheme.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend has three times mentioned that the scheme will be voluntary. Is she aware that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Treasury Select Committee and others have been very sceptical about the effectiveness of a voluntary scheme, given that the five or six such schemes already operating around the world are all done on a mandatory basis and they clearly produce a far higher return for good causes than would any voluntary scheme?

Yvette Cooper: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but the scheme that we are proposing has strong support from the industry and both banks and building societies have said that they intend to participate in it. That is encouraging, which is why we have set out the Bill in this way, but we will need to review the situation over time, to monitor the scheme's progress and to look into what further support may be needed.
	Three principles have informed the Government's approach: first, that the preferred outcome should, where possible, be to reunite account holders with their money; secondly, that account holders must have the legal right to reclaim their money at any time; and thirdly, that the scheme should be designed to run effectively and efficiently in order to maximise the money available for reinvestment in the community.
	The scheme will allow eligible banks and building societies to transfer money in accounts that have lain untouched for at least 15 years to a so-called reclaim fund. By making the transfer, the liability to repay the account holder will also pass from the bank to the reclaim fund. Any money that the reclaim fund does not need to meet the claims of customers will be passed over for reinvestment in the community via the Big Lottery Fund.
	The scheme aims to capture genuinely lost accounts. That is why we have set the dormancy period at 15 years. Some people have argued that it is too long, but we still think that it is appropriate. We will, however, bring forward an amendment to enable this period to be made longer or shorter in future if the evidence shows it to be appropriate, as it is important to ensure proper protection for account holders.

James Duddridge: How confident is the Minister in the figures provided by the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association, particularly given that  The Times was reporting up to the end of 2006 that the amounts involved in dormant accounts could be up to £20 billion? Are the figures given by the Minister for a 15-year dormancy or is there an aged analysis of dormant accounts from a more recent period—perhaps with a three-year dormancy? These will effectively be brought in over time.

Yvette Cooper: We have said that we view 15 years as the appropriate period, so it is not our intention to reduce the dormancy period. The reason for bringing forward an amendment is in order to respond to points made in the other place and as part of the consultation to the effect that there should be greater flexibility and no need to return to primary legislation if certain evidence arises. That will be a matter to discuss in Committee—as I have said, an amendment will be brought forward—but we believe that 15 years is the appropriate period.
	The figures that I cited from the banks and building societies are obviously the best that we believe are available. Clearly, they are estimates and different ones will be put forward, but it is right to work on the basis of what we believe to be the best figures available. This will need to develop over time as the reclaim fund is established and it becomes clear what sorts of account can be transferred into the scheme. We will have to look at the evidence as things develop. That is why it is right that there should be some kind of review of the scheme as it progresses.
	In the other place, the Bill was also amended to require banks and building societies to consider any customer-initiated activity, such as correspondence, telephone calls, voting at annual general meetings and so on, when determining whether an account is eligible for the scheme. We recognise the intention behind that amendment because, of course, we would expect banks and building societies to do exactly that, but we do not currently believe that it is necessary to legislate on that point.

John Butterfill: I must declare an interest as a trustee of a number of charities. In particular, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, of which I am a long-standing trustee, has expressed concern about using the Big Lottery Fund to identify worthy causes, first, because it is an expensive mechanism and, secondly, because its record in choosing good causes is perhaps not as strong as it might be, given that, on occasion, it has been used for purposes that might otherwise have been funded by the Government. Will the Minister reconsider using the Big Lottery Fund?

Yvette Cooper: We think that the Big Lottery Fund is the appropriate organisation. It is important that we use an existing body to do this, rather than create duplicate organisations, which would increase the cost of distributing the money when our priority should be to get the resources to local schemes and, in particular, the young people who could benefit from this proposal.
	We think that the Big Lottery Fund has the capacity to distribute resources on a large scale. Obviously, the issue will be discussed further in Committee, but the Big Lottery Fund also has access to an extensive network of third sector and public sector delivery partners, ranging from the large national charities to local community groups. Therefore, we think that it represents the best way to distribute the money and to get the best value for it by using it effectively.
	May I complete the point that I was halfway through when I took the intervention? On the issue of the amendments made in the other place, the ultimate safeguard for customers is that they will be able to get their money back at any point from the reclaim fund, via their own bank. We believe that there are also some drafting and legal difficulties with that amendment, which is why we shall seek to overturn it.

Simon Hughes: I am very supportive of the proposal in the Bill, not least because many of my constituents and organisations in south London see the opportunity for money to come in to help work with young people.
	When a group of young people and their organisations came together the other day following the knife crimes that have happened in London, one of the questions that they asked me to ask is whether money can come in and whether it is the Government's plan not just to create new buildings, but to support existing organisations that could do with expansion or additional resources to do the good work in the community that the community needs them to carry out. If so, can we come to see somebody about that—which Minister is it?—to put the case for existing organisations to be supported, not just for new work to begin?

Yvette Cooper: Treasury Ministers will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his point further. Obviously, some of those issues will be for the Big Lottery Fund to set out as part of its distribution, but it probably is important that during consideration of the Bill we have a good debate on how the resources should be distributed.
	The hon. Gentleman would probably agree with me and any other Member of the House who has conducted any kind of local community consultation that one of the key issues on which we can get young and old alike to unite is the need for more facilities for young people and for more for them to do in local areas. That can have benefits not just for those young people, but right across the community. That is why it is so important that we should look to access and use those resources to build a stronger future for young people as well.

David Taylor: It is important not to double count in relation to the possible impact on charities in constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The figures suggest that the biggest 12 banks and building societies currently give more than £300 million a year in their own charitable donations. Does my right hon. Friend have any indication of the possible impact on that level of giving if banks and building societies lose control of and access to their dormant assets?

Yvette Cooper: I do not believe that the measure will reduce the amount that banks and building societies can contribute to different charitable works. There are two things to consider. First, the Bill allows both assets and liabilities to be transferred. If the banks or building societies continue to hold the assets, they also continue to hold the liabilities on the dormant fund, which could limit what they can do as a result. Secondly, the scheme is voluntary. It is a way of ensuring that building societies and banks do what they think is right in terms of accessing the assets and putting them to good community use.

Julie Kirkbride: It is important to remember that the money does, or did, belong to someone and that some of it might have belonged to people who have died and left legacies. A group of charities has asked for a reserve power to be included in the Bill. The charities are worried that they cannot trace the money that they have been left in a legacy because it is too difficult under the current online registration scheme to know when people have changed names or houses. We should bear it in mind that they are asking for something not for today but for the future. If, in three years' time, Parliament considers that not enough progress has been made in attaching legacies to the relevant charities that would benefit from them, the Government will have to come back to the House with primary legislation. Will the right hon. Lady consider including a reserve power in the Bill so that we do not have to do that?

Yvette Cooper: We have not so far seen the need to include additional support. Obviously, we are happy to consider further issues in Committee. This is a Bill that should command cross-party support. We are happy to continue to look at the issues. As has been said, this is about where possible reuniting the resources—the money and the assets—with those who originally put them in the account or, if they have died, respecting any legacies or wills that they might have set up. Clearly, that is an important part of the approach to the Bill, but equally we have to recognise the existence of dormant assets, which have often sat in accounts for many decades, and put them to good use.
	The reclaim fund will receive money from dormant accounts. The Bill does not create a reclaim fund, but it sets out the requirements that a company must meet in order to operate as one and provides for its authorisation and regulation by the Financial Services Authority. The FSA will ensure that the reclaim fund has sufficient money to meet anticipated levels of claims for repayment and will set out a regulatory regime, which will of course be subject to full consultation as well. The Bill requires the fund to meet repayment claims, manage money prudently, and transfer surplus funds to the Big Lottery Fund for distribution. It also allows the fund to cover reasonable running costs.
	The Bill was amended in the other place to make a reclaim fund accountable to Parliament. We strongly agree that the fund should function transparently and the Bill requires it to publish key information about its operations, but we do not believe that it is sensible for a private company to become accountable to Parliament in that specific way. Therefore, having considered the issue, we will propose further amendments in Committee to improve the transparency of the arrangements and to respond to some of the concerns raised in the other place.

Graham Stuart: The National Consumer Council has said that not enough effort is made by banks to reunite dormant accounts with their holders, and a major campaign is required in that respect. Is the right hon. Lady confident that enough is being done by the banks to ensure that that happens?

Yvette Cooper: The banks set up the new "mylostaccount" website in January this year which has helped more than 100,000 people to get their money back. It is always important for us to urge banks and building societies to do more and to do whatever they can. However, the ultimate and hugely important safeguard for people is that they will also be able to get their money back from the reclaim fund.

Mark Hoban: The Chief Secretary spoke of reversal of the Lords amendment relating to the parliamentary accountability of the reclaim fund, but she forgets that the Treasury has power to give direction to the company that sets up the fund. In view of that, I think it important for there to be some parliamentary accountability.

Yvette Cooper: Clearly the Treasury is always accountable to Parliament for the use of its powers, but I think we should bear in mind the complexities involved in an attempt to establish parliamentary oversight of a private company, as opposed to parliamentary oversight of the Treasury and its decisions. We will propose further amendments to respond to some of the points made in the other place. We do not think that the way in which the Bill currently deals with the issue is satisfactory.
	Account holders will experience no practical difference in the way in which they are treated as a result of the scheme. Banks and building societies will act as the reclaim fund's agents, and on validation of their claims account holders will be repaid in full by their banks. That will include any interest that is due.
	The case was made in the other place that the Bill should require a triennial review of the scheme. We feel that we must ensure that the scheme is working simply and fairly, and we think it right to review it once it is up and running; however, we do not think it right to require triennial reviews in perpetuity to be included in the Bill. That issue will also feature in the discussions in Committee.
	As I said earlier, we need to ensure that the money raised is distributed fairly throughout the United Kingdom to deliver practical programmes that will bring about real change to neighbourhoods and benefit a diverse range of communities. As we said in the pre-Budget report, the Government intend the resources, in England, to be focused on youth services, financial capability and inclusion. Investment in young people is investment in the future of the whole community, while raising the levels of financial capability and inclusion across the population can help people to make the right financial choices to support themselves and their families. In addition, following consultation, we should like a proportion of the available assets in England to be invested in the long-term sustainability of the third sector, if resources permit such investment.
	The spending areas in England are set out in the Bill. Following the model used for the national lottery, the Bill also empowers the Secretary of State to identify particular priorities within the spending areas that must be taken into account in the distribution of assets. We believe that the approach should follow the precedent of the national lottery spending directions, rather than some of the proposals made in the other place. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will determine their own spending areas, which will reflect the needs of communities in each country.

David Drew: I welcome the boost that the scheme will give youth services, but what many of those services need in particular is an asset base. A straight revenue grant will be of no use, because it will merely postpone some of the problems. Can we be creative in the way in which the lottery is asked to provide funds? Surely providing that asset base is the most appropriate use of the funds.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that the funds are used to provide sustainable support for young people in particular areas, rather than short-term support that cannot be replicated in the future. Further consultation and discussion will be needed on exactly how that should be done, and I hope that we can take my hon. Friend's points on board at that stage.

Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will, for the last time. I want other Members to have a chance to speak.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and also for her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), but will she consider again how the help will be focused? Will the Big Lottery Fund be able to operate proactively in geographical terms? For instance, will it be able to target resources on areas where there is great need but little capacity for making bids, and where awareness of the fund may be low?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to ensure that the resources are distributed fairly across the country and that those areas which might have less capacity or expertise to access the funds do not lose out unfairly as a result, so we would certainly be keen to take on board those points in terms of the way the distribution mechanism operates.
	Finally, I wish to make the point that we have in the Bill introduced the provision that small financial institutions, particularly building societies, should be able to operate alternative arrangements where they play an important role in their local communities and want to be able to distribute dormant account money to local charities. These alternative arrangements will allow the reclaim fund resources to be returned to the bank or building society for distribution to local charities. We had originally proposed that in order to qualify for this alternative scheme an institution must have total assets of £7 billion or less. Amendment in the other place makes the option available to small banks and all building societies. In fact, the vast majority of building societies were covered by our arrangements. We have listened to the arguments for the inclusion of big building societies, but we do not believe that the expansion of the alternative scheme is desirable. We believe that the larger financial institutions serving wider communities across the country should take part in the main scheme to ensure that resources can be distributed fairly and strategically across the country to meet the priorities discussed in this House. Therefore, we will bring forward amendments in Committee to focus the alternative scheme on the ability of small institutions to support their local communities.

Martin Horwood: Is not the Chief Secretary being a little disingenuous when she talks about the vast majority of building societies being covered, because some 83 per cent. of the assets of the building society sector are with the big seven, so she is really talking about taking away the independence of those building societies to distribute the funds as they see fit?

Yvette Cooper: I do not think this is remotely about taking away the independence of the building societies. The building societies have the ability to have their own charitable support schemes and programmes operating in their areas and to use their assets accordingly, and many of them do have such schemes. This is about using parliamentary legislation in order to be able to access dormant assets by allowing them to transfer the liability as well as the assets to a reclaim fund. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are a lot of resources in the large building societies, and those building societies should be part of the main scheme. What we are trying to do is help the smaller building societies—of which there are many across the country. Where they are very much embedded in a particular local area or community, that should continue to be supported. However, where the larger building societies can serve much wider communities, we believe they should be part of the wider scheme which involves the banks as well.
	This Bill offers an historic opportunity to unleash the potential of the money in the dormant bank accounts in order to deliver social benefits. It does so while maintaining strong support for protection for consumers and for ensuring that they can continue to have their rights respected—and, where possible, for them to be able to get access to their money as well. This is a big opportunity, and a long-term programme to help support improved youth services and other social benefits across the country, and as such I commend it to the House.

Mark Hoban: It has been six years since the Government first raised the prospect of using money from dormant accounts for good causes. Since the Government published their consultation paper on the Bill, we have had three Economic Secretaries—I am glad to see that the third is in his place—and it has been eight months since the Bill had its First Reading in the Commons, and I suspect that even now it will be at least a year, if not longer, before the money will start to flow. However, in that time, the scheme has changed so that now, rather than charities benefiting directly, the money will be spent at the direction of the Government in line with the priorities they set out in the Bill and, as a number of interventions have indicated, the amounts involved have shrunk. The unclaimed assets register suggested there was about £8 billion split between bank accounts and National Savings & Investments. The current estimate from the Building Societies Association and the British Bankers Association is that there is about £400 million to £500 million from banks and building societies to be used in the scheme. Clearly, the effectiveness of the operations to reunite customers and their accounts will reduce those amounts, so, although the amounts involved are still significant, the scaling down of the estimates does lead, as I shall mention later, to some difficult issues regarding the distribution of the assets.
	However, an important prior step to the process set out in the Bill is to ensure that banks and building societies take action to clean up their records, and try as far as possible to reunite customers and their dormant accounts. I am aware from my conversations with the sector that banks and building societies are taking steps to do that. For example, Lloyds TSB announced in June that it is appointing a company to help trace the holders of dormant bank accounts. HBOS has united £18 million sitting in dormant accounts with its customers, with another £29 million left to trace through. According to the BBA, some £50 million has already been reunited with its rightful owners.
	In addition to the efforts of individual institutions, there has been a collective effort through the website mylostaccount.org.uk, which provides bank, building society and National Savings & Investments customers with a single point of contact for tracing accounts. Since its launch on 30 January 2008, more than 140,000 people have submitted search forms for money left unclaimed in dormant accounts. That compares with 44,000 claims in 2007 via the separate tracing services for the BBA, the BSA and NS&I. That demonstrates that the focus on reuniting has led to an increase in interest in the matter, and more customers clearly are trying to track down their unclaimed assets.
	I want to address the concerns that a number of Members have expressed about charities. Charities represented by the Unclaimed Assets Charity Coalition have set out a very important case—they believe that they would be unable to unlock money sitting in dormant accounts where they are the residuary legatee. They have argued for a central register of accounts that they could use to identify accounts that they believe belong to them, and that a reserve power should be included in the Bill. I can understand their arguments and have some sympathy with them, but such a power goes beyond the voluntary approach that forms the basis of the Bill. However, clause 12 provides them with an important safeguard, as the triennial review explicitly refers to the right of a charity to receive money due to it under the terms of a will. That is an important safeguard, and I hope that that transparency will encourage banks and charities to work closely together on making sure that they have access to those dormant accounts. However, it will be interesting to see how the debate plays itself out in Committee.
	It is imperative that, within the constraints of the scheme, there is a robust exercise to reunite customers with their money. If the process is robust, there will be much greater certainty that money transferred across to the reclaim fund relates to genuinely dormant accounts and is therefore less likely to be subject to a reclaim. The Bill before us sets out a legal framework for a voluntary scheme to enable money sitting in dormant accounts to be used for the public good, while ensuring that those who rightly own those assets are able to recover them. The Bill has four essential components: one relates to the question of how we know when an account is dormant, the second extinguishes the liability on the bank's or building society's balance sheet when the asset is transferred to the reclaim fund, the third establishes the proper legal framework for the reclaim fund and its functions, and the fourth relates to the allocation of amounts transferred from the reclaim fund to the Big Lottery Fund and to the spending priorities identified in the Bill. However, I want to explore some issues that flow from those steps.
	Although there has been a great deal of discussion in recent years about the use to which unclaimed assets in a range of categories can be put, those assets are there to meet liabilities—there is a debt due to a customer, a pension to be paid out or a life assurance policy to mature—so in any scheme it is vital that the record of liability be retained, even if the liability itself is legally removed from the institution's balance sheet. It is therefore important that, once that liability has been extinguished from the balance sheet, there is a reserve in the reclaim fund to pay out to customers who come forward to reclaim their money.
	One of the fund's priorities is to build up sufficient reserves to cover future claims, yet there is a countervailing pressure to transfer as much money as possible from the reclaim fund to the Big Lottery Fund for distribution. Too few reserves will leave the fund and potential claimants exposed. In the event of a fund's being unable to meet all its claims, customers will be covered by the financial services compensation scheme, but that is not a green light for the reclaim fund to be imprudent in how it operates. I am also conscious of the fact that if too little money is distributed to the Big Lottery Fund and to the spending priorities, there would be pressure from the potential beneficiaries, and perhaps the Government, for more to be distributed.
	I come back to my intervention on the Chief Secretary, because the Bill gives the Treasury the right to give directions to the reclaim fund. I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary's response could explain how those powers might be used, because a conflict of interest is involved: the Treasury has a role not only with regard to the reclaim fund, but as one of the departmental sponsors of one of the spending priorities—financial inclusion. How does he believe the Treasury will help the fund to strike the right balance between protecting the interests of customers and ensuring that the right moneys flow through to the spending priorities?
	Given the important role of the reclaim fund and the need for public confidence in its work, we support the amendments tabled in the Lords to require the accounts of the reclaim fund to be laid before Parliament. I am sorry to hear that Ministers are seeking to remove those provisions in Committee. We will clearly have a debate about that, because it is important to recognise that although the reclaim fund is a private body in terms of its constitution, it is clearly not just a private body. The Bill provides for the Treasury to give direction to it and, as such, one would expect the levels of transparency and accountability to go beyond those applicable to a conventional limited company.
	Once proper protection for customers has been established, the next stage is how to use the money. As the Chief Secretary has said, the Bill distinguishes between two sources of these funds: building societies and small banks, and large banks. The money from large banks will go to the Big Lottery Fund, and I shall return to that matter in a moment. The Bill, as drafted, allows for building societies and small banks to allocate the amount from dormant accounts, over and above that needed for the reclaim fund to protect its customers, to be allocated through their own charitable foundations, reflecting the strong links that exist between building societies and the communities that they represent.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that two sources of dormant assets may produce the financial flows that we have heard described today, but there are also comparable sums of dormant assets in insurance policies and, in particular, in NS&I. The Treasury Committee recommended that, in respect of equity, NS&I assets should be treated in the same way as those of banks and building societies. The Government have refuted that by saying that NS&I's unclaimed assets are used for the community benefit anyway, but as a quid pro quo for not having its dormant assets liable for this type of activity should not NS&I at least invest much more activity in promoting the existence of arrangements for people to identify whether there are NS&I unclaimed assets to which they might be entitled?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes two important points, the second of which I shall deal with first. NS&I has made some progress in reuniting customers with their assets—that is an important step for it to take. We put pressure on banks and building societies to do that, so we want NS&I to undertake the same process of ensuring that customers to whom this money belongs are reunited with their assets.
	The hon. Gentleman's first point was about the Bill's scope, which is narrow; it focuses primarily on banks and building societies. The Treasury Committee put forward a clear argument for including NS&I in the Bill, and I was not entirely convinced by the Treasury's arguments as to why NS&I should be excluded from its scope. The suggestion was almost made that NS&I customers should not take their money out of NS&I savings products at all because that would force the Government to find new customers for those products. I did not think that it was the most robust argument that we have heard from the Government as to why NS&I should be excluded from this process. Clearly, NS&I customers are entitled to the same degree of support in identifying their assets as customers of banks and building societies. We would expect a public body to be as good as, if not better than, banks and building societies in that respect.
	The Chief Secretary made an argument about the exclusion of large building societies from the scope of the Bill. Many of them have strong local ties, but they are also mutuals. We are not talking only about money from their customers, but about money from their members. Some of the larger institutions feel that the Government have overlooked that element of their mutuality in trying to reverse the amendment made in the House of Lords. Account holders have a different relationship to their building societies from that which bank account customers have with commercial banks. I expect that we will have a long and healthy debate about whether that approach is appropriate.
	Once money from large banks has been transferred to the reclaim fund, and reserves have been put to one side for reclaims, the Big Lottery Fund will be the distributor to the three causes identified in England—youth services, financial inclusion capability and social investment—and the devolved Administrations will decide their own priorities for their share. We welcome the priorities set for England, but the Bill is silent on how those priorities will be ranked. I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary, when he winds up, could explain a little more about how the money from the reclaim fund will be used and how the priorities will be set. Will a fixed proportion of the funds go to each of the three causes? Does the order in the Bill reflect the order of priorities? Will a fixed monetary sum, rather than a proportion, be allocated to each cause? Who will determine the allocation between the various priorities? The Bill makes frequent reference to the Secretary of State, but given that the priorities cover three Departments—the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office—and the Big Lottery Fund itself is accountable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to which Secretary of State does the Bill refer? We need some clarity—[ Interruption.] The Economic Secretary says that the DCSF is the lead Department, but how can people who are operating in the area of financial inclusion, or social investment wholesalers, be sure that their priorities are getting a proper hearing from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families? We need to bear in mind that co-ordination issue, and it is odd that a Secretary of State with a particular interest in one of the priorities should take the lead. We will need to explore that.
	On the issue of the causes, we must express some sympathy for Sir Ronald Cohen and the Commission on Unclaimed Assets. It must have thought that when Sir Ronald, the chairman of commission, who was so close to the then Chancellor—now Prime Minister—suggested that money from unclaimed assets should go to a social investment bank, the recommendation would have been accepted. However, that was until the then Economic Secretary—now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and an even closer ally of the Prime Minister—pulled rank and put two of his own pet projects in the list of priorities. He added youth services, in a nod to his future job, and financial inclusion, which was one of his priorities as Economic Secretary. That means that it is not clear whether sufficient funds will be available from this exercise to provide the sort of contribution to a social investment bank that the commission thought was necessary. It said, in its initial report, that there should be initial capital of £250 million and an annual income of £20 million for the next four years. Given the way in which the funds available for distribution appear to have been scaled down over time, it is not clear whether that ambition can be met.

Pete Wishart: Would the hon. Gentleman like to congratulate the Scottish Government on the way in which they approached that very issue, and the £40 million of funding that we will secure? We consulted widely with the entire voluntary sector and engaged the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, and together they identified the priorities. Is that the way in which that should be done in England? Perhaps England should follow suit.

Mark Hoban: I think that the Government went through a consultation process. It will be interesting to see just how the Government consult on how they allocate the money from the reclaim fund to the three priorities. What sort of consultation process will they expect to see? How will they gauge the amount to be allocated to each of the three priorities? What weight will they give to the fact that the person responsible will be the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, one of whose main responsibilities is youth services? It is not clear how we will get a fair process lined up.
	Of the three priorities in England, two—youth work and financial inclusion—are already supported by Government expenditure. The challenge facing the Government and the Big Lottery Fund will be how to demonstrate that money spent is additional to the money that the Government already intended to spend. That additionality is quite a difficult issue for the distributor to come to terms with. It is easier if the scheme is launched part-way through a comprehensive spending review period, but once a scheme is up and running there will always be concern that the spending priorities have been set in the knowledge that money is coming through from those sources.

Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that although, of course, money is available from the Government—directly and indirectly—for activities for young people and for youth work, there is no statutory responsibility for such funding. That means that there is never any guaranteed money for that age group, and that is one reason why it might be a good first cause in England and why I hope that he will support its remaining the first cause in England.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman may well be right that that funding is not a statutory responsibility, but in a way that gives the Government a bit of a let out by saying that they do not have to fund such activities—they know that X million pounds will be flowing through from the reclaim fund, so they feel that they can reduce expenditure. I think we all want to see additionality; the money should come on top of the amount of money that the Government intend to spend. One of the requirements that the Government will have to work hard at, together with the Big Lottery Fund, will be how to demonstrate that the funding is additional to existing Government expenditure rather than a substitute for it.
	Another aspect of the legislation that we need to think about quite carefully is the fact that we are establishing a legal framework for a voluntary agreement by banks and building societies to transfer money from dormant accounts to a reclaim fund and for the surplus money to be used for the public good at the direction of a Government Minister. There is a hybridity in that process—I am aware that that word has a particular meaning in parliamentary terms, but what the Bill provides is very much a hybrid arrangement. We are talking about an essentially voluntary activity on the part of the banks and building societies, yet the money raised through that voluntary activity will be spent at the direction of the Government. That is why it is important that there is proper scrutiny of how the scheme works.
	I have already touched on the need for scrutiny of the reclaim fund. In the other place, Baroness Noakes successfully moved an amendment introducing a triennial review of the scheme. I noted the Government's desire in Committee to remove the requirement in perpetuity for a triennial review. We need to ensure that the scheme is working properly, and I am not sure that simply saying that there will be a review in three years and that will be that is the right answer, given the particular and peculiar nature of the scheme that we are discussing today.
	The review will help to shine a spotlight on how well banks perform and how well they reunite their customers with their funds. It will act as an incentive to banks and building societies to take appropriate steps to trace owners. It will also become apparent when we look at how much money is recovered from the reclaim fund by customers just how well or badly banks have done in that important preparatory work. It is important that that public scrutiny is undertaken.
	The voluntary nature of the scheme, as well as requiring a particular degree of parliamentary scrutiny, has another benefit. It means that the cost of the scheme should be lower than that of a compulsory scheme, as it should have the benefit of reducing administrative costs and ensuring that much of the money that flows out of dormant accounts is available for distribution. It is therefore important that as few hands as possible dip into the funds and that any administration costs are kept under control. The Opposition certainly expressed concern in the other place in respect of the Big Lottery Fund's administration costs and the costs that the Government could defray from the scheme, and we will return to that in Committee.
	When the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, it will mark the end of the opening phase of how we deal with unclaimed assets. People will want to consider how the Bill works in practice and to discover what lessons can be learned for other categories of unclaimed assets. The Young review of the financial assistance scheme pointed out that there were many different classes of dormant assets sitting in pension accounts and on life assurance company balance sheets and that people had forgotten about premium bond winnings. Once the scheme has worked its way through the system, there will be pressure to consider what else should be included within its scope. Again, the clause on triennial review includes that likelihood.
	The Bill is a test-bed. Its results will be scrutinised carefully to find out what lessons can be learned. The scheme will be scrutinised on its own merits, too, to discover how effectively it works to provide proper protection for consumers, by ensuring that they do not lose their right to money that has been put into a dormant account. People will want the scheme to be run efficiently at every stage, and they will want it to put the emphasis on consumer protection, as well as on releasing money for good causes. Financial institutions want the scheme to safeguard their obligations to their customers and members, too. Charities and voluntary groups want the scheme to deliver clear benefits for them, as well as support for the Government's priorities. The Bill provides a framework for that to happen. It is now our task to ensure that it is improved, so that it meets the expectations of all the stakeholders involved in putting together the scheme.

Martyn Jones: I congratulate the Chief Secretary on introducing the Bill to the House. As someone who has been campaigning on the subject of dormant accounts for many years, I am delighted that the Bill has reached this stage today. The issue is technical, and a great deal of consultation and discussion with the banking industry has taken place. It is a credit to the Government that we now have an opportunity to legislate. Having made speeches, launched more early-day motions than I can remember and lobbied the Government for nearly a decade, I was half afraid that I would become dormant before seeing the introduction of the Bill.
	The Bill is important, despite its less than stimulating name, because it will have the potential to pour considerable resources into our national economy and to prevent unused resources from languishing hopelessly in the coffers of private companies. It may pave the way to fund community projects across the country, thereby strengthening Britain's social fabric and altering the lives of a great many people. To that extent, it matters a great deal.
	People are supposed to check their bank accounts every so often, and I first came across the issue of dormant bank accounts when I decided to look through my standing orders, direct debits and so on. I found a £1 direct debit going into a building society that I had never had any contact with in my life, as far as I was aware. I thought that I would stop paying it, but I then decided to find out more about it. I was going into town the next day, so I took the reference number and popped into the building society. I found that the money was going into a fundraising account for the Labour party that had been closed about 10 years previously, apparently.  [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members may say that the account should remain dormant. The party got my money eventually, but it thought that it had closed the account. That is the point, and I wondered what would have happened if I had not stopped my direct debit. The building society could have used that money to loan to other people to generate money. Essentially, it would never have had to give it up to anyone.
	As luck would have it, Ireland was starting to legislate for the same thing at that time, so I looked around the world at other countries that had introduced such legislation, and quite a lot of countries have done so. I thought, "Well, what can I do about it?" I wrote to every bank and building society in the United Kingdom to ask them three questions: what was their definition of a dormant bank account; how many did they have; and how much money was in them? Not surprisingly, not many of them told me the answers, but some did. A sufficient number answered to enable me to work out that there was a great deal of money sitting doing nothing—or at least doing nothing but making profit for the banks and building societies.
	I wrote to the British Bankers Association, but it seemed quite happy with its scheme, which consisted of one person in the BBA offices distributing forms to people who wanted to know where their bank account had gone. It took me two years to get a meeting with its then chief executive, Ian Mullen; after showing a great deal of reluctance, he eventually met me. He, too, thought it quite acceptable to continue to have only one person meeting the needs of people who had lost contact with their bank accounts.
	The problem has had a very slight impact on my personal life, but for countless others, the impact is great, and will continue to get greater. The reasons for dormancy are many and varied, and we have heard some of them. They include death and intestacy; small, overlooked standing orders; and simple forgetfulness. No matter what the reason for the dormancy of the account, all people with a dormant account have one thing in common: the right to regain the money to which they are entitled. The Bill has at its heart the objective of reuniting people with their money, and I salute the lengths to which the Government have gone to protect that right in the Bill. It is just and fair that the rightful owner be placed at the heart of the legislation, as they have been.
	I suspect that some in the press, and perhaps in the House, will attempt to scaremonger and pander to cheap media criticism of the Bill. Even in 2004,  The Daily Telegraph referred to the Government's "dormant accounts grab". I urge Members of all parties to steer clear of that line of attack, because the effort, skill and consultation that has gone into protecting individual citizens' finances is laudable. Any accusation that the scheme is theft from private bank accounts is wholly without substance.
	I pay tribute to the provisions of the Bill that ensure a perpetual right of reclaim, to the provisions that mean that a member of the public need not deal directly with the central reclaim fund but can always deal with their own bank, and to the Government's continued efforts to lead a public information campaign to reunite people with their lost funds. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury can assure us that the provisions will be acted on fully, and that the Government will continue with their public information campaign aimed at allowing people to reconnect with their lost funds.
	The Bill is not about moving funds from citizens' bank accounts to the Government's. It is about reconnecting people with their lost funds. Where that is not possible, the Bill is a means of using unclaimed and lost funds to achieve social goals in the community, and preventing those funds from padding out the profit margins of the banking industry. The Bill's goal is highly commendable. It raises the amount of money available for the furtherance of good causes and lowers the risk that any British bank account can be lost for ever without a right to reclaim.
	I have praised the Bill, but I have concerns about the voluntary nature of the scheme; that subject has already been raised. At present, no bank will have to contribute to the scheme if they do not want to do so, and if they commit to the scheme, they are under no compulsion to do so fully. That, obviously, is what is meant by a "voluntary" scheme. Recent times have perhaps shown that the free market, and in particular banking lobbies, cannot be trusted to act in the public interest of their own volition. Stronger regulation over recent years could have gone some way to protecting us from the current credit crunch, but I will not dwell on that.
	I am not alone in expressing fears about the opt-in scheme; I am joined by the Treasury Committee, which respectfully urges the Government to reconsider a compulsory scheme. It should be noted that not a single developed nation with dormant bank accounts legislation has chosen anything but a compulsory scheme. Such schemes are found in Ireland, the USA, Canada and New Zealand. A compulsory scheme would guarantee not only a level playing field for all concerned, but a single unified banking commitment and fidelity to the legislation. I understand the Government's desire for soft-touch regulation but I cannot align myself fully with that desire. Regulation is not burdensome when it is necessary. As I say, I have concerns about the voluntary approach. The first such concern is simply that the banks will not participate at all, especially as they can currently use the credit crunch as an excuse for non-participation.

Colin Breed: On the basis that this is a voluntary scheme, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the bank Santander, for instance, will voluntarily put what would originally have been dormant accounts in Bradford & Bingley into the pot, or does it perhaps think that the period of time has been refreshed, and that there is another period before those accounts become dormant?

Martyn Jones: There is a distinct possibility that that is happening, and not just with Santander. I will not mention the names of the banks involved, but there are a number of areas in which that may be happening, and I shall touch on that. I am concerned about the total pot of money, precisely because of what the hon. Gentleman said. As I said, it is possible that people might not participate at all. A voluntary scheme creates a stark choice for a bank: either donate money to the reclaim fund, or keep it in its own funds.

Robert Flello: My apologies to the House for the fact that other business has kept me from the Chamber on and off this afternoon. Are my hon. Friend's concerns about the willingness or otherwise of banks and building societies to engage a result of his experience in trying to gain information? Will he enlighten the House on that point?

Martyn Jones: As I said, I will touch on one or two issues of that nature.
	The banks were extremely reluctant to give me any information about dormant bank accounts. Initially, the British Bankers Association was extremely reluctant to come out with anything. Not surprisingly, it was happy with the existing situation. I confess that I am not a banker, but if one puts oneself in a banker's shoes, which option would be the most appealing—giving money to good causes, or hanging on to it, particularly in a situation such as the one that applies at the moment?
	In the Government's response to the consultation by the Commission on Unclaimed Assets it was stated that the proposed legislation's legal release of financial institutions from financial liability to repay dormant account holders was an incentive for banks to comply with the voluntary scheme. May I ask the Minister exactly how that is an incentive, because banks frequently accept liability to repay money to their clients for a return? That is their business. I suggest instead that a bank never surrendered a penny it did not have to surrender, and that that may well outweigh any eagerness on their part to expunge long-held liabilities which they will almost certainly never be asked to pay back.

Brian Binley: Barclaycard, I am happy to say, is based in my constituency. Its record on charitable giving, particularly giving to enhance society, is immense, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to pay tribute to that.

Martyn Jones: Absolutely. I am delighted to do so, but there are two separate things that should not be confused. First, banks' charitable giving: most major corporations give out of their profits— [I nterruption. ] I am talking about money on their balance sheets that they do not want to give up. They were reluctant even to tell me about the amount on their balance sheets, so those are two different things. I am sure that Barclaycard and many other banks give money, but we could be talking about a great deal more than the amount of charitable giving.
	Banks are granted plenty of leeway in the definition in the Bill of a dormant account. The Bill does not state whether the 15 years without customer contact is a time without contact by way of withdrawal, or by way of failure to pay in funds or to write to the bank. The banks have the luxury of interpreting that for themselves, and I suggest that they will do so in such a manner that is to the advantage of no one but themselves. In short, they will frame a definition of dormancy that involves minimal payment.
	The banks are seemingly granted leeway in the definition of a dormant account with regard to the start date of such an account. The point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) is relevant here. The notion of dormant accounts remaining always the property of the owner was only formally introduced in the banking procedural code in 1992. Will banks now apply that regulation to all accounts, or will they apply the regulation more favourably to themselves and state that only those accounts that became dormant post-1992, after the introduction of the code, count as truly dormant and should therefore be transferred to the reclaim fund? I hope that the Minister can offer guidance on such a practice and say whether she would discourage it.
	There is a real risk that banks may very well place a minimum-amount standard in their definition of dormancy. For example, an account can be classified as dormant only if it contains a sum greater than £100. Several banks and building societies have applied such criteria when it came to contacting customers with dormant funds. That is fair enough in the case of someone with the dormant sum of £1 lying in their account, as it costs £1.50 to contact them. However, that is not the situation in this case. I hope banks will not apply the same contact definition to the definition of dormancy required for a transfer of accounts to the reclaim fund. There should be no minimum amount standard. As I suspect that a large proportion of dormant accounts contain small deposits, that is important. Will the Minister agree to clarify the situation regarding a minimum-amount standard?
	There is mounting evidence to suggest that some definition-based abuse of the voluntary scheme may well be taking place. One need only look at the changing estimates for how much return the public can expect to see from dormant bank accounts. Estimates have always varied as to how much money there is in dormant accounts. High estimates have stated that there is more than £20 billion in dormant accounts.
	In 1997 an Inland Revenue study stated the figure to be a more conservative £2 billion to £4 billion. In its coverage of the 2005 pre-Budget report, the BBC placed the figure at £15 million. In 2006 Grant Thornton looked at the Irish model and its progress, and estimated that there might well be £5 billion in dormant bank accounts. We really do not know. In 2007 a sitting of the Commons Treasury Committee placed the figure at £500 million. The Commission on Unclaimed Assets said £400 million.
	As the years have gone on, the figure appears to have got less and less. A potential £20 billion to £400 million is quite a shift in figures. Some have tried to explain this by looking at the period of 15 years enshrined in the Bill for an account to become dormant. The Bill sets a period of 15 years, whereas previously banks set their own internal definition, when they replied to me, of three to five years. It seems remarkable to me that even £5 billion can be turned into £500 million by removing just 10 years of dormant funds from a definition.
	In 2004 I conducted my own private poll of major banks and building societies in the UK. One major bank, which must remain nameless because I said that it could, told me that it alone had around £400 million in dormant accounts. I had a conversation with one representative of that same bank recently, and it revised its figure to £50 million, so £350 million has disappeared. I cannot explain that, and I would be interested to know whether the Minister has asked the banks whether they can explain it.
	The voluntary scheme clearly has its frailties. However, it could be made more likely to succeed by an increase in the information available to the public. Voluntary regulation tends to work best when those watching the scheme have adequate information by which to judge the participants' performance. My understanding of the scheme is that banks would have to declare the amounts given to the reclaim fund, but that is not enough. We do not know the total sum in dormant accounts in order to measure levels of co-operation. We have the banks' estimates, but that is all. It is my understanding that banks will be required to undergo an audit. Can the Minister confirm that that figure will be put into the public domain?
	We cannot compare various banking contributions as we do not know which definitions of dormancy are used by them. Does the Minister accept the need for banks to publish the exact terms of their definitions of dormancy? At present we are faced with a very odd problem. If, under the current voluntary scheme, the money collected is less than expected, it will be difficult to decipher what that means. It could be a signal that the banking industry is reneging on its promises, or it could simply be a sign of a successfully run reuniting campaign. We just do not know.
	MPs do not often say this, but we do not know enough. That is a confession, I suppose, but it is true. We do not know enough to judge the performance of the voluntary scheme. We have too little information; the banking industry has it all. I strongly suspect that, as in the case of the revenue from dormant accounts, we cannot hope that they will share it with us.

Julie Kirkbride: Reflecting on what the hon. Gentleman has just said, surely the banks would be only too pleased to trumpet the fact that they were successful in reuniting the money in the accounts with their rightful owners, so we would have some idea how much money had been disbursed in the process proposed.

Martyn Jones: The hon. Lady misses the point. We do not know how much the banks have, but they will trumpet how much they are giving out. They are already doing so. As we have heard today, some banks are successfully reuniting the accounts with their owners, and that is the best effect that the legislation will have. It will ensure that banks do their best to reunite owners of bank accounts with their accounts in the hope that they will hold on to them. Once the owners know that they account is there, they may well leave it with that bank. That is an incentive, which did not exist before.
	The voluntary scheme runs the risk of being manipulated or ignored, as I said. Either way, or even in the unlikely event of full compliance, we will be wholly unable to discern which has taken place. It seems that the Bill will leave many in the House and many outside who are concerned about the matter feeling like Oedipus wandering blindly through the countryside. Unless we act to increase the amount of information in the public domain, our blindness, like that of Oedipus, will have been self-inflicted.
	Will the Minister assure us today that if a voluntary scheme is pursued and the information provided is found wanting, she will at least offer the public greater information, so that there is a greater possibility that voluntary regulation may work? That would include a fuller definition of the term "dormant", and a compulsory report by all banks of how much they give to the fund and whether that is the full amount of dormant funds that they hold under a preset wider definition. Lastly, the audit of dormant accounts in this country that will take place should be made public knowledge, to give some idea of the genuine amount of unclaimed assets held by British banks and building societies. For years banks have been the problem when it comes to utilising dormant funds. It seems prudent not to rely wholly on the problem being its own solution, but as it currently stands, that is exactly what the voluntary scheme is doing.
	However, if the Chief Secretary feels that the provision of further information is not an appropriate course of action, I urge her again to consider adding a reserve power to the Bill to make the scheme mandatory at a later date without recourse to primary legislation. That view was supported by the Treasury Committee and is also supported by early-day motion 346—a cross-party motion with 92 signatories. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) mentioned earlier, the proposal is also supported by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has done a great deal of work on the Bill.
	The Government rejected the idea of a reserve power, stating that they had no wish to grant themselves sweeping secondary powers that could be used on a whim. However, the Government frequently pass into legislation wider secondary powers than that. Will the Minister today recognise that such a power would not be unnecessarily large, but a wise precaution when ensuring the compliance of private interests, especially so in the light of recent revelations about the banking industry's wholesale failure to invest in a manner that will safeguard public savings?
	On the asymmetry of the scheme, the lack of enforcement and control procedures in the collection of funds appears to be paralleled only by the enormous amounts of regulation attached to the distribution of those funds. The asymmetry between the two halves of the scheme is worrying. The banking industry is trusted with a light-touch approach, but the Big Lottery Fund has strict mandates concerning to whom, how and when it must maintain and donate. The current Bill is an entity with two different sides. It is odd to see so little and so much regulation seated side by side.

Roger Williams: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his work on such matters. He mentioned the Big Lottery Fund. He will be aware that any funds going to Wales will be distributed on the basis of the Big Lottery Fund formula of 6.5 per cent., rather than on the Barnett formula of 5.85 per cent.—in other words, on the basis of a needs-based formula, rather than a per capita formula. Does he think that now is a good time for the Government to look into the Barnett formula again and to come round to the Big Lottery Fund formula, which is much more appropriate?

Martyn Jones: I am sure that you will not allow me to go down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's other point that the distribution should be needs-based. However, as a Member from mid-Wales, he will know that there are problems with distribution even within Wales, and they must be closely watched.
	I have discussed the regulation controlling the use of funds and observed the extreme juxtaposition of regulation in the Bill. I do not oppose the regulation of distribution. The task is difficult and the Government should be involved in the use of public money by an external agency to fulfil social goals. However, I cannot help but notice the contrast. It appears that the agencies distributing the money cannot be trusted to do their job without tight regulation, yet they are charities with a record of success, such as the Big Lottery Fund. On the other hand, it appears that the banking industry can function fine without regulation, despite its record of indifference in that area.
	Let me move to an entirely separate aspect of the Bill: the definition of dormancy. As many of my hon. Friends will know, it was a matter of some discussion in the other place. I have looked into some of that debate and a few alternative definitions of dormancy have suggested themselves. When I refer to the definition of dormancy, I am referring to the time period over which an account has to be left untouched before it can be transferred from the bank's revenue to the central reclaim fund. The Bill declares that period to be 15 years, as per clause 11(1)(a). I would like to ask the Minister why exactly a 15-year period was selected.
	In the consultation, the Commission on Unclaimed Assets appeared to recognise that time period as provident, as
	"it best recognised the accounts which were dormant".
	However, that explanation appears to be little more than a reformulation of the question, rather than a genuine answer to it; indeed, it is a tautology. A similar explanation was used by the Government in response to the Treasury Committee's recommendation that 15 years be reduced to 10 years. Can the Minister today shed any further light on those two explanations? I was pleased to hear that, as the Chief Secretary said, the Government will apparently support a possible change in the definition somewhere down the line. However, 15 years is too long, and can be proven to be too long now.
	Given the protection of individual funds, which I praised so highly at the start of my speech, I am confused as to why we should need such a long definition when the money is not going to disappear. The money is there, and people who have the information can go to their bank and the reclaim fund and get their money back, regardless of the time period. I would have thought that there was a case for a differential definition, so that if we are talking about an investment account, the period should be 10 years, and if we are talking about a current account, the period should perhaps be three years. There are international precedents for using a sliding scale, which is one of the ways in which a dormant bank account is defined in the United States.
	I have two further points—I am sorry that I am taking up so much of the House's time, but as you can probably tell, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been looking into the issue for a long time. The first point is about the mechanism used to allow people to reclaim their dormant funds. The British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association have set up a central tracking website, as well as a central tracking form. That request for information will then be circulated around various banks and building societies, which will check their records to see whether any names match, in the hope of locating any dormant accounts. That is a great move forward, although one that has happened only in the past few years—the banks and building societies seemed to be quite happy before the prospect of legislation. That view is echoed in early-day motion 1581, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), and the idea seems preferable in most respects.
	Secondly, the Government have thus far rejected the notion of a central register, claiming that it would have vast repercussions for the bank-customer relationship. That point is not without merit and there is no doubt that we should act with caution before impacting on such a contractual arrangement. However, I would like the Chief Secretary to say exactly what she considers the danger of such a centrally held register to be. Surely it would be formed with a minimum of information. Names of account holders and funds would be the only two details originally required. If the reclaim fund is a secure database, I struggle to see what threat is posed by such a register. I am sure that other hon. Members will talk about the issue later and it is right that it should be covered in more depth. However, I felt that I should at least offer my support to the cause, as I believe it to be a good cause and one worthy of championing.
	Let me make one final point—again, it has already been made, but it is worth repeating. The Bill is a good start. It is not, as an infamous US politician once declared, a case of "mission accomplished". Instead, the Bill is the moment when the mission really begins. The fight to stop private interests from writing off billions of pounds of assets into their profit margins has now been taken up in the limited instance of bank accounts, but it has yet to find a legislative champion when the practice rears its ugly head in different forms, some of which have already been mentioned. To name just three, unclaimed insurance policies, unclaimed pension policies and unclaimed gambling winnings are examples of where private interests are winning out. The Bill is not the right place for those issues; I mention them to remind the Minister of the continuing work and legislation still required in this field, which I am sure she will acknowledge.

Jeremy Browne: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), both for his long-standing interest in the subject and for his heroic but seemingly futile attempts to save the Labour party from bankruptcy.
	When the business was originally scheduled for 6 October, our first day back, no one could have anticipated how much water would flow under the economic and political bridge. The then Chief Whip, who presumably originally scheduled the business, has moved on to a different role. Half the Treasury Ministers have also moved on, although I welcome the part-time Economic Secretary to his post. Furthermore, concern about dormant bank accounts has been overtaken in many quarters by concerns about dormant banks. However, the Prime Minister deserves some congratulations on reawakening the dormant career of Peter Mandelson, which is one of the finest developments of the past few days.
	It might help the House if I provide a little background. In the current phase, the issue was first brought to light in the 2005 pre-Budget report, which stated that where dormant accounts could not be reunited with their owners the money should be reinvested in the community, and specifically in youth services, financial education and social investment. I shall come to those three fields of spending in due course.
	The Government undertook two consultations on the proposed scheme: first, "A UK Unclaimed Asset Scheme: a consultation", which was published in March 2007, and, secondly, "Unclaimed assets distribution mechanism: a consultation", which was published in May 2007. In August 2007, the Treasury Select Committee published its report, "Unclaimed assets within the financial system", and the Government's response was published in October 2007. We welcome this considered approach to legislation, although it has not always typified the way in which the Government have addressed these matters. However, this process has been drawn out over such a long period that one wonders whether some of the accounts in question were new deposits when the Government first turned their mind to the matter.
	The Bill provides a framework designed to balance the rights of owners with action designed to benefit communities, and that is an important balance to strike. If this were simply a matter of the state being seen to confiscate the funds of private individuals, it would clearly raise considerable concern. The Bill is divided into three parts. Part 1, comprising clauses 1 to 16, deals with transferring liability and money to the reclaim fund. Part 2 deals with the distribution of funds, and there are some final provisions in part 3. Money in dormant bank and building society accounts of 15 years or older will be transferred to the reclaim fund, but it will be reasonable for us to discuss during our deliberations this evening and in Committee whether 15 years is the most appropriate time span.
	My party supports the principles of the Bill, as it did in the other place, and we support the improvements made to it in the House of Lords, although there have been some interesting developments in the interim, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) pointed out to the Chancellor a few hours ago. He asked whether the current banking crisis raised new issues that we need to address during the passage of the Bill, not least because there seems to be an assumption in some quarters that the money sitting in the banks at the moment is gathering dust on a shelf and not being used for any purpose at all, and that it could therefore be utilised for good causes without any other consequences. That might seem increasingly like a less safe assumption to make, if indeed it was ever safe.
	I give my thanks to Lord Shutt and Lord Newby, who led for the Liberal Democrats on the Bill in the House of Lords. It has already been considered at some length in the other place, and that will inform our deliberations throughout. In the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats supported all the cross-party amendments that were pressed to a Division—jointly, in most cases, with the Conservatives—and the Government were defeated on four of them, the first of which, tabled by Lord Shutt, dealt with the £7 billion cut-off point. There is an important discussion to be had on the overall merits of the scheme on a national basis, and the degree to which individual banks and building societies should be able to take a more local approach to projects that they have supported for a considerable period.
	Another amendment on which the Government were defeated proposed the introduction of a statutory requirement for all annual accounts, reports and directions received from the Treasury by the reclaim fund to be laid before Parliament. We supported two further Conservative amendments that were passed: one introduced the requirement for a tri-annual report to be laid before Parliament on the running of the scheme; the other related to the technical definition of the word "dormant". Given the cross-party approach to the Bill as a whole, and because we do not anticipate any Divisions this evening, I urge the Minister not to dismiss out of hand the amendments that were passed in the other place. They were not partisan amendments tabled by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in order to be divisive. We were seeking to strengthen the Bill, and the Labour Government might see merit in the proposals that were made, if they could only put to the back of their mind the authorship of the amendments.
	Some other amendments that were proposed in the House of Lords were defeated—one Conservative amendment would have required the use of the affirmative resolution procedure, but it was defeated by 130 votes to 107—and others were withdrawn. It would be worth the Government's while to revisit some of those proposals, because it does not necessarily follow from the numerical superiority in the House of Lords that the proposals were without merit.
	I wish to raise a few areas of concern, some of which have already been touched on, and some of which have received less careful examination over the past couple of hours. The first concern relates to the amount of money involved, and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was talking about hundreds of millions of pounds—her estimate was about £350 million to £500 million—and such figures have been widely quoted. However, I have heard a huge number of other figures quoted, and there is a big disparity between them. I have heard estimates of £3 billion to £5 billion, which is 10 times the amount that the Government anticipate being realised through the scheme. As I understand it, when a similar initiative was introduced in Ireland, the amounts that accrued were far in excess of those anticipated by the Irish Government.
	It would also be interesting to know how much money will be available year on year. There will be an initial hit, when the funds in all the accounts that have lain dormant for 15 years or more are realised—assuming that they can be uncovered—but the accounts that have currently been dormant for 14 years will presumably come on stream a year later, and those that have currently been dormant for 13 years will do so the year after that. The Government should provide a cash flow estimate, and it would be interesting to hear how much they anticipate becoming available year on year, after the original money has been realised, for the causes that they have identified.
	A second area of concern is the rather convoluted way in which depositors will be able to get their money back. As I understand it, they will have to go to the bank in question, rather than to the reclaim fund. Will the Minister clarify the degree to which the bank and the reclaim fund will be able to exchange information that could make it easier for the person who deposited the money more than 15 years previously to track it down without the process becoming unnecessarily burdensome? For example, they should not need to be put through to people on the other end of telephone lines who cannot provide them with the relevant information due to confidentiality or other issues of that type. If that issue has been resolved to the Minister's satisfaction, everyone will be very pleased, and I hope that he will touch on that point in his response to the debate.
	A third area of concern is the status of England compared with the other parts of the United Kingdom. It is our intention to explore in greater detail in Committee the proposal that the money be restricted to youth investment, financial management and social investment. We need to determine whether the Government intend to stick to that restriction, or whether it is even desirable to do so. Some people will see this as another Olympic subsidy fund, but, as the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) pointed out, we have still not had a proper indication of the balance to be struck between those three uses for the funds. Obviously, dividing the money equally between them would have different implications from giving 95 per cent. to one area and 5 per cent. to the other two. I hope that the Minister will be able to spell this out in greater detail. Will he also tell us why the fund in England is to be restricted to those three areas, while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have total discretion over how the money is to be spent in those countries? For example, Wales could presumably choose to spend 100 per cent. of the money on youth investment, or none at all.
	It would also be interesting to know about the proportions involved in the division of the money. Would the decisions be made roughly in proportion to the populations of the countries of the United Kingdom, or would they depend on the bank deposits in those countries, which could give Scotland a better share of the money than if the decision were based on population figures? Or, as a Labour Back Bencher suggested earlier, would the decisions be made following an assessment of need? That could benefit some parts of the United Kingdom disproportionately, compared with others. It is still unclear to me, and perhaps other Members, how these matters are to be resolved.

Simon Hughes: These are important points to explore, but does my hon. Friend accept that the reason for the inclusion of the English provision in the Bill is presumably that there is not yet devolved government in England? Some of us wish that there was, and hope that there will be, but there is none yet. Secondly, would it not be unfortunate if the money that the Government had led people to believe would be used for youth provision were suddenly to be diverted from that area? This has been trailed for a very long time and there is no statutory guarantee of funds. I can assure my hon. Friend that many people and organisations firmly believe—the Bishop of Chelmsford made a good case for this in the other place—that revenue, as well as and probably more than capital funding, is needed to support good youth work, which is constrained because it does not have the funds to grow and deal with issues on the front line.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention and I recognise the need to give discretion to Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I anticipate, however, that if no money were spent in Scotland on youth services, for example, a fuss would be made that the people of Scotland had been led to believe that the Bill would realise money for those purposes. It is a difficult balance to strike. My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I hope that the Minister will respond to it: the public have been given the impression—not misled—that the money will be devoted primarily to youth projects, and some will be concerned that if there is no indication as to what proportion of the money will be so directed, although it need not necessarily be on the face of the Bill, many campaigners on these issues might be disappointed.
	My fourth area of concern is the lack of a national register, which was raised earlier in respect of wills, legacies and other funds that are not readily accessed without such a register. My fifth concern, which I hope the Minister will address, is with the mutuality of building societies, the £7 billion asset threshold and the discretion accorded to some but not other institutions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that.
	My final concern is the voluntary nature of the scheme. I assume that it is voluntary because the Government are nervous about appearing to compel financial institutions to act under the diktat of the state. In the last few months, of course, these considerations have altered somewhat, but I assume that the motivation reflected the Government's sensitivity on this area. We are left in the strange position whereby Ministers tell us that the scheme is entirely voluntary, but that they anticipate that every bank will wish to participate. The scheme appears to be a form of voluntary coercion, if it is possible for us to understand such a concept. I do not understand what incentive the banks have to sign up to the scheme. If it is voluntary, why should the banks support it? Much depends on their being seen to do the right thing and not incur the wrath—or at least the bad will—of the Government. It may be, however, that struggling banks will now regard that as a lesser priority than when the legislation was initially conceived.
	In Committee, we intend to explore the following issues in more detail. First, we want to include a reserve power to create a mandatory dormant account register so legacies can be rightly reunited with their legal owners. Secondly, we want to include a reserve power to turn the scheme mandatory if participation is insufficient. It will depend on market circumstances, but it will be useful to have such a power. Thirdly, we want to support the triennial review, as advocated in the House of Lords, as we view that proposal as having merit. Fourthly, we want to support the removal of the £7 billion asset threshold for building societies, and, fifthly, to ascertain the percentage split apportioned to each UK country. One can understand why there should be some discretion, but the Minister's clarification of how much will go to youth services, financial education and social investment would be helpful. A firmer indication of how much will go respectively to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would also be helpful.
	Finally, I would like the Minister to clarify why the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is taking the lead on distributing the funds. One can assume only that the emphasis put on youth services will be greater than that on financial education and social investment. That seems a reasonable assumption: many will welcome it, but others who want more money spent on financial education and social investment will not. It remains a mystery to me why the Department for Children, Schools and Families is taking the lead role unless the emphasis is going to be on youth services. The Department's remit is exclusive to England— [Interruption]—so it will not have a useful role in investing money elsewhere in the UK. I am rightly corrected by a sedentary intervention to the effect that the Department is not wholly English in its concerns, but it is largely concerned with English matters.
	My conclusion is that the new Economic Secretary should consider an early power-grab and see whether the Treasury—or, indeed, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, in which he is also a Minister—should take the lead on this matter. If not, why is the Treasury forfeiting its usual role? Is the Minister confident that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families will distribute the money in the most appropriate way?

Mark Todd: I rise to speak as a member of the Treasury Committee, whose report has already been the subject of a number of remarks. More of us would have been present today, but the Committee is absent on a visit. I particularly pass on the apologies of our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), who I know would have wished to contribute to the debate.
	I support the intentions behind the Bill. Dormant accounts undoubtedly offer potential for beneficial use, but I emphasise straight away—some have already done so to a greater extent than others—that these remain private assets, so it is necessary to reinforce the tangential relationship of the state to this issue. I believe that the state should be there to enable solutions to be found in respect of the distribution of private unclaimed assets rather than to adopt an overly controlling approach to the management of the assets or their eventual distribution to any good cause.
	That is why I particularly welcome the work already done by some banks and building societies to locate people who have unclaimed assets. It is particularly impressive, I must admit, that HBOS, with all its troubles, has devoted a good deal of time and effort to tracking down what it regards as unclaimed assets. About a third of those dormant assets have been reunited with their owners, which is extremely commendable.
	When the Select Committee considered the Government's proposals last year, a number of objections were raised about the voluntary nature of the scheme—I shall touch on it, as have others—the definition and identification of dormant accounts, the scheme's scope and the options for disbursement. Many of our concerns were echoed in the other place by speakers from all political parties when the Bill was considered there.
	The first issue is whether the scheme should be voluntary or compulsory. The Select Committee took the view that it should be compulsory, and I see the arguments in favour of that. I remind hon. Members of my earlier remarks, which perhaps suggested sympathy for that opinion, where others did to a different extent. Members of Select Committees—I have been one for a long time—seek to arrive at consensual conclusions, but one obviously has more or less enthusiasm for certain opinions that are expressed. However, I shall represent here some of the arguments in favour of a rather firmer approach to this scheme. One is undoubtedly that it relies entirely on voluntary commitment.
	There is no international precedent for a voluntary scheme and such schemes as exist elsewhere are all compulsory. We have heard from the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association that all financial institutions are keen to participate. The dormant accounts scheme will be self-regulated by the banking code. The banking code itself is voluntary, so we will have a voluntary scheme regulated through a voluntary code, which means that we will be relying incredibly heavily for delivery of our expectations of the Bill on the good will of the businesses that participate.

Simon Hughes: I understand the dilemma involving the voluntary and the non-voluntary option, but is not one argument for a compulsory option that we would have much more certainty about the funding over the medium and long terms? Bluntly, it will be difficult to achieve predictability with a voluntary scheme.

Mark Todd: I shall come to that and suggest some other problems that undoubtedly arise.
	The Committee struggled to see what incentives a bank will have to participate fully in the scheme. Another speaker also questioned what incentives might be in place. There is, to some extent, an incentive in the disclosure mechanisms that lie within the proposals in that the reclaim fund will publish the details of contributions made to it. Therefore, by definition, those who have been less enthusiastic participants will be exposed, although there may be reasons why their contribution might be lesser. They might be more effective in tracing links to unclaimed funds, for example. Such information will probably not be a particularly strong enforcer of participation.
	A refusal might also, particularly in current circumstances, be considered by shareholders in the institution one of the lesser faults of that institution, if I may put it that way. This matter will not be a high priority among most shareholders or, for that matter, among the executive management team. We can be pretty sure that it will not be a bonusable objective in banking to distribute unclaimed assets as rapidly as possible to a reclaim fund. Other means than something of this kind will be sought to motivate senior executive teams, so there clearly is an issue of how to ensure that the proposal delivers something like the objectives that we all have for it.
	I do not think that there is a risk of banks and building societies refusing to participate because, once people have become aware of these matters, that represents open defiance of the genuine public will and of Parliament. Nevertheless, we should consider the commitment of resources to the task that participation involves. This is not a trivial activity. From what I can tell, the average size of such accounts is between £100 and £200, and in many cases the costs involved in tracking down individuals to reunite them with those accounts will probably exceed the sum involved. Therefore, one can hardly say that a financial institution will be unwise to think carefully about how to prioritise its resources to achieve the objectives of the Bill.
	Without a compulsory framework, one can see considerable difficulties. For that reason, the correct balance is probably struck here in terms of facilitating a voluntary approach first and then reviewing the mechanism established by the Bill to see how it is working. We will then be able to see whether rather firmer statutory enforcement is required. I am sure that we will discuss that further in Committee, although I would wish that it were not necessary. I hope that this would be a task committed to by the financial sector with some enthusiasm, but one has to say that that is a counter-intuitive thought in current circumstances and in relation to the mechanisms in place to reward bank staff for achievement of particular goals.
	I note, for example, that my noble Friend Lord Bach said in the other place that
	"prestige is likely to be attached to participation".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2008; Vol. 698, c. 568.]
	I have a lot of respect for his opinion and I know him well, but I must admit that I am not sure that that will be a substantial motivation for people to press ahead with the scheme.
	I hope that the Minister will suggest some more powerful mechanisms to prevent lip-service participation by businesses that are committed to taking part in the scheme. It is fair to say that at the margins—much of banking is a low-margin activity—there will be a temptation for companies to exercise some competitive advantage in this area by the efforts that they put in, because the steps that are taken will undoubtedly and obviously have some effect on removing cash from the institution concerned.
	There is an argument about how much the balance sheet will be weakened. After all, both sides of the balance sheet—assets and liabilities—are involved. These proposals will certainly remove a cash resource from institutions and, as I have said, there is a cost attached to the activity itself. Some institutions might decide to spend less money and time on it and observe with some enthusiasm how others spend rather more time and effort on it. The competitive nature of the industry might persuade some to put in fewer resources than they should.
	Let me turn to the issue of data, about which most people in the House care pretty strongly. One must presume that at least some details of individual assets and their presumed owners will be transferred to the reclaim fund for ongoing pursuit, so it is worth the Minister setting out some reassurances on the transfer of what we must recognise are data about individuals and their financial circumstances, whether they are still alive or not, and whether or not, for some reason or other, they have no wish to be identified with their assets. These matters might be very personal to them, so we need to be sure of the security of the transfer of personal data.
	I also presume that, should a bank or building society cease to be active, tracing an individual's account back to him will become an obligation of the reclaim fund. Therefore, the data that are transferred must be sufficiently full to make it possible to establish such linkage at some future stage. We must always recognise that, however old some of these accounts are, someone may indeed have some claim on them, and they have every right to that claim.
	We have also touched on the participation of National Savings & Investments, and here I firmly side with the Select Committee. I felt that the Government's answer on the reason for the exclusion of NS&I from the scheme was rather thin and that it implied that if they gave this money away they would have to find the same amount somewhere else. Yes indeed, but this is someone else's money. In some ways, it could be argued that that is true of everything that the Government have, but that is an over-philosophical argument to have at this time of night.
	However, we are talking about savings which, by an individual deliberate act, have been placed in the care of the Government to bring some return. That is different from the receipt of money from all of us as taxpayers. My personal view is that NS&I ought to participate in the scheme on the same basis as banks and building societies. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain with more rigour than the Government mustered in their response to the Select Committee report why that should not be true.
	My anxiety about the disbursement mechanism in no way reflects any ill-will towards the good causes identified by the Government. They are all sensible and we can debate the precise balance of the spending between them this evening and in Committee. However, I am concerned that we are dealing with other people's money, held by private institutions. I would have preferred a more inclusive mechanism for deciding how the resources should be distributed than simply saying that we will give them to the Big Lottery Fund and setting out the broad objectives that we have in mind. To go back to my earlier remarks, that takes us a little further into the state's role in the matter than I would optimally have preferred. Even at this late stage, I would prefer more consultation so that stakeholders can have a greater say.
	A good example of that is the role of charities. It is undoubtedly true that a significant proportion of the money may well be attributable to charities on the basis that they are the beneficiaries of a will. Although the voluntary sector should not have the exclusive say, I would have welcomed some participation by it in the process to decide whether the priorities are right and perhaps to answer some of the questions on proportionality as it relates to the good causes named so far.

Simon Hughes: In the hon. Gentleman's work on the Select Committee or elsewhere, did he come to the conclusion that one reason why the Government are so specific about the English priority is because although it has long been argued that there should be money for youth services, it has never been a statutory requirement? Everything else is—children's services and older people's services, for example—but this is the Cinderella service. Making it a priority could be a surrogate way of giving it a bit of solidarity and respectability.

Mark Todd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the service is still a surrogate. I do not think that there is a clear link between the purpose of supporting youth services, which I agree with, and the precise mechanism for collecting the money for it. I certainly do not dissent from the measure and will not vote against the Bill. I, too, want more youth services in my area. It is undoubtedly a needy sector of public services. However, bearing in mind my view of the legislation as a whole, I am uncomfortable about the non-inclusive way in which the decisions have been made. It would have been helpful to have had a more rounded approach, as the Select Committee said, incidentally. It firmly shared my view.
	On local disbursement and the activities of smaller banks and building societies, the figure of £7 billion seems about right, but there is no rational basis for saying that a smaller institution is defined by an asset base of £7 billion.

Colin Breed: As a member of the Select Committee, I share the hon. Gentleman's views. We came to similar conclusions and the report was good. I am interested in the cut-off point of £7 billion. On a bank's balance sheets, the assets are the loans. Current accounts and dormant accounts are the liabilities. Do we mean assets on a bank's balance sheets when we talk about liabilities?

Mark Todd: That is a fair point. The hon. Gentleman is an ex-banker, although he does not shout about that quite so much at the moment. I apologise if I inaccurately referred accounts as both assets and liabilities. There is, however, a technical point to be answered on defining the asset base.
	My view is that the better test is whether the institution is capable of supporting a local framework of delivery. Some institutions are, but many are not. Some small local building societies would undoubtedly be able to make judgments in their own area, where their customer base still largely is, but it is also true that some institutions—the Nationwide, for instance, has received plaudits for this—are active distributors to the voluntary sector across their nationwide networks. The Nationwide has just absorbed my building society, the Derbyshire, which covers a large chunk of businesses in Derbyshire. It qualifies as a society that is well equipped for carrying out such distribution through its own means.
	Again, I welcomed the Chief Secretary's justification of the precise cut-off point in monetary terms rather than in capacity terms, which relates to whether an institution is capable of making such a distribution for itself and whether it would wish to. Many banks and building societies would rather pool the money with others and have the distribution carried out by an institution or expert in such matters. However, some would want to make their own judgments about that but would not qualify under the size qualification.
	I want to raise a small number of technical points. Customers' rights are preserved on the insolvency of a business, which in theory places someone with an unclaimed asset in a better position than any other customer of that financial institution. It is not a major point, but it is worth giving a bit more thought to how that degree of protection can be applied to a tiny minority of account holders of a society, and those whom we do not know, and whether that presents anomalies in the general protection of accounts that is offered under the financial services compensation scheme.
	It is also worth knowing how the mechanism identified in the Bill will work. Under the proposed arrangements, on transferring dormant accounts to the reclaimed fund, the bank has its liability to repay the customer extinguished. It enters into an agency agreement with the fund to carry out that duty on its behalf. If the institution becomes insolvent, how is that action to take place?
	Others have mentioned their concern about the ability of charities to go back to a source to check their entitlement to proceeds from a will. I share that concern and am a signatory to the early-day motion on that. The mechanism devised in other countries to find a name seems to work pretty well. The website here, which has received justifiable praise, requires prior knowledge, such as whether someone had an account in Derbyshire, which people are unlikely to have. In many cases, it will not be known where the accounts have been held. The mechanism needs to be much more name-based than institution-based. A reserve power, defined in the Bill, should make it possible to establish a register of the assets enabling individual charities, and others, to make claims more intuitively and effectively.
	As a strong supporter of mutuality, I think it important to ensure that individuals' membership rights are protected when an asset is transferred. If someone who holds an account in a building society—as I do—loses touch with it, that does not involve losing touch with a membership right that grants benefits other than merely holding the account and gaining a return from it. Although the Government's response to the Select Committee stated that the membership rights would not be changed, a little more thought is needed about what that really means. The response implies that if the details of the account are transferred to the reclaim fund, along with the task of managing it, the society must nevertheless maintain a member register with a tag relating it to an unclaimed asset that has been transferred from its balance sheet.
	I would welcome the Minister's assurances and explanations in relation to a number of the points that I have made, but I believe that the Bill deserves all our support, and I shall be surprised if it does not receive it, at least in qualified terms.

Julie Kirkbride: I apologise for not having been able to be present for all of the debate so far. Parliamentary business took me away, causing me to miss what I am sure was an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), with which I would no doubt have strongly agreed. I apologise to him, in his absence. Since then, however, I have heard contributions from other Members, including the Chief Secretary, who not only made a very good speech in support of her Bill but displayed open-mindedness over the potential of the Committee stage in respect of a number of the issues that have been raised. I think that the House will welcome that; I certainly welcome her attitude.
	I returned in time to hear the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) express his well-thought-out objections to the Bill. I must say that while none of us want to be friends of bankers nowadays, I do not take his dim view of the banking industry, so I did not entirely agree with many of his observations. I thought that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) made a very good speech about the pinch points that remain in the Bill, which I am sure will be raised in Committee. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) gave an excellent presentation of his experience on the Select Committee. I strongly agree—and I wish to make this the thrust of my own speech—that if we are to have the proposed register, it should be based much more on names than on institutions if it is to have a realistic prospect of reuniting people with their assets.
	I support the Bill and its intentions. I think that it proposes a very good use of money that is lying dormant in bank accounts. Bearing in mind the statement that we heard earlier, however, I worry slightly about whether now is the moment to introduce such legislation. Perhaps we shall return to that issue in Committee. As was observed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), if we face such a dire situation in the banking industry, it may be worth considering a delay in the implementation date of what is nevertheless a worthy Bill.
	I am sure that we can all argue about whether 15 years is long enough for assets to lie dormant, and about whether the Big Lottery Fund is the right body to distribute the money. I share reservations that other Members may feel about that, and no doubt views will differ on whether the Government have identified the right organisations to benefit. I respect their mandate to decide such issues, however, so I shall set my reservations aside and agree to agree with them in that regard.
	I wish merely to make an appeal on behalf of charities that have contacted me. Enthusiasm for the good causes that will benefit from the Bill may make it easy to lose sight of the fact that this money belongs to someone. It may belong to someone who is alive, or it may once have belonged to someone who is now dead and who will almost certainly have left a will expressing intentions about how the money should be used.
	One in seven of those who leave wills bequeath money to a charitable organisation, amounting to about 5 per cent. of their estates. Whether we are talking about £500 million or billions of pounds—for we do not know how much the Bill will liberate—we are talking about an awful lot of money that could go to the charitable sector. The wishes of the money's owner could be respected if it were given to, for instance, Cancer Research UK, which has contacted me, the British Heart Foundation, which receives some 47 per cent. of its funding through legacies, or a range of other charities, all of which do fantastic work and rely heavily on legacies to maintain their core funding, their fundraising activities being in addition to that.
	I think it behoves Parliament to consider charities' worries about the inadequacies that they see in the Bill at present. They want to be sure of being able to identify and claim their assets. I am sure that the Minister has seen early-day motion 1581, which refers to the Unclaimed Assets Charity Coalition. I think that its request is modest and reasonable. It suggests that we should see whether a voluntary scheme works, but also take the precaution of stating in the Bill that if a case can be put in the triennial review that it has not been seen to work, the Bill will provide for the establishment of a different kind of register that will enable charities to claim their assets much more effectively. That would not bind the present Parliament, and would not impose an excessively bureaucratic burden on banks—which I understand is what worries Conservative Front Benchers, and we can all understand that at the moment. It would, however, mean that we would not need to have recourse to primary legislation again if we wanted to devise a more robust system. Powers in the Bill could be activated on the advice of a future Parliament.
	As was suggested by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, the online traceability scheme relies on knowledge of the name of an institution that might hold assets that a charity might feel belonged to it. As we all know, perhaps from our own experience but certainly from the experiences of friends and family, it is easy to forget about small amounts of money in a bank account. We may change our name or address, we may lose the paperwork, the box may be in the attic; but it is easy to lose track of small amounts if, for certain reasons, we have opened a variety of bank accounts. Without a name with which to trace someone—people's lives change: they may get married, change their names for other reasons, or move house—it is easy to lose sight of bank accounts. That is particularly true when someone dies, and the relatives must perform the horrible business of clearing up that person's life and financial accounts.
	I completely understand that there are concerns about fraud, but successful schemes that have brought forth a much easier way of tracing people's accounts and assets already exist in America and Ireland. The ambition of the Unclaimed Assets Charity Coalition, which comprises 60 charities, is modest; all it is asking is for the legislation to include a chance to revisit this issue if the Government's good intentions set out in the Bill are not as successful as they might be.
	I welcome the Economic Secretary to his new role at the Treasury, alongside his other responsibilities elsewhere in Government, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say later.

Tom Levitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who began in the style of someone making a winding-up speech, to the extent that I suddenly wondered whether I was going to be called to speak at all. She told us that someone who is dead is someone who is not alive but, in what was a good and consensual speech, she made the important point that this is our one chance to get the legislation right. We will not revisit this issue through primary legislation because the Labour Government of 2011 will be too busy, and we owe it to everyone involved, whether bankers or the communities who will benefit from this, to get the legislation right first time. There are a number of issues about that which I shall address later.
	I take, rather than declare, an interest in this issue as chair of both the Community Development Foundation and the all-party group on the community and voluntary sector. Until this Bill came along, I had not realised that in one important respect the banking industry is part of the voluntary sector, and I will return to the issue of whether the banks will volunteer to take part in the dormant accounts proposals.
	I was interested to think about the nature of the funding that will come out of this legislation—as well as the quantity, which is also important. Is what we are talking about a windfall, or will there be an ongoing stream of funds as more and more current live accounts become dormant in the future? My guess is that, in the future, as awareness of dormant accounts rises increasingly through the reunite process and other means, there will be fewer dormant accounts reaching maturity. Also, as people have more control over their accounts, through internet banking and so forth, there might be less chance of them losing control of those accounts in the future. Therefore, there is a worry that what we are talking about might, in effect, be a windfall—that it might be a source of income that peaks over the first two or three years as the backlog of dormant accounts gets cleared but that then rapidly falls. If we believe the British Bankers Association, we are talking about the sum of £500 million. That is a lot of money in some respects, but over how many years will it be spent, and will it get topped up as the years pass?
	As the Chief Secretary told us at the beginning of the debate, that £500 million equates to 0.07 per cent. of banks' assets. In other words, the size and impact of this scheme, were it to be taken up 100 per cent. by the banks, is a pinprick. It will not make a difference to the stability of the banks, and while I understand the sensitivity in the current circumstances, which could not have been predicted weeks ago, let alone months ago or when this issue was prioritised, we should enact the legislation. We possibly should talk later on in Committee about implementation dates, but even in these circumstances it is right only to tolerate months of delay, not years of delay. We need to know how much money we are talking about and, as has been said, the BBA estimate is at the bottom end of the estimates. Regardless of whether we end up with a voluntary or a mandatory scheme, we need to find a way of being clear about how much money is involved and the time scale governing that money.
	I agree with what has been said about the reunite process. It is absolutely right that people should be reunited with what are, after all, their own possessions. Like other Members, I have had the e-mail from Halifax Bank of Scotland telling me how it is getting on, with £18 million of dormant funds already allocated and £29 million still to be allocated. It also told me that 83 per cent. of accounts left to be reunited hold less than £100. For that reason, I would be wary of the suggestion reported to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) that there should be a £100 de minimis sum, because if we are talking about 83 per cent. of all these accounts, lots of those £100s make up a lot of money, and they should be included.
	HBOS went on to tell me that 244 dormant accounts had been identified in my constituency. I found that a bit odd, because either it is extrapolating, in which case on average there should be 244 accounts per constituency, or it knows the postcodes of the people who own these accounts and who it is seeking to reunite with them. I would be interested to know from HBOS whether those 244 accounts are an extrapolation or that is the right figure.

Mark Todd: rose—

Tom Levitt: I think my hon. Friend is going to tell me he has the same number in his constituency.

Mark Todd: I am not. What I have to say demonstrates that this must be based on real data about real people, because my figure is 136, and the population of my constituency is a great deal larger than that of my hon. Friend's.

Tom Levitt: That is interesting, and it does not reflect well on the people of the northern part of Derbyshire who are obviously more careless than the people in the southern part of Derbyshire—I hope that does not get reported. Taking the figure of 244 such accounts in my constituency as an average—which might be an overestimate—given that it is said that the average sum per account is £316, there is about £50 million over the country as a whole from HBOS alone that should be available for this scheme. That figure must then be multiplied by the sums for the other banks and building societies as well, so we are talking about a lot of money.
	I want to talk about the issue of whether this scheme should be mandatory or voluntary, on which I made an intervention earlier in the debate. When my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary sums up, I would like him to make a point—he might write this down now in capital letters—of listing for us all the Treasury regulations that are voluntary. Which of the current regulations can financial institutions opt in or out of as they choose? I think that will be a very short list. I do not see what the point is of having optional regulations. As has been said, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and Spain all have dormant account recovery schemes and none of them has gone for the voluntary approach, because they realise they cannot get as much social value and investment coming from those dormant accounts through voluntary means; my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire articulated that point well. A mandatory scheme would be equitable because it would treat every financial institution involved in exactly the same way. At the very least, I urge my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that we must have, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said, a reserve power so that we do not have to return to this House when we find in a few years' time that the voluntary approach has produced very good results from some institutions and negligible results from others, because that is the way it will work.
	I take on board the Chief Secretary's point at the beginning of the debate that a triennial report is probably more important in the early years of the working of the scheme, and I think that after one or two years we would probably know how successful the scheme is, so I am willing to go along with her on that to some extent. However, I think there needs to be at least one triennial report to review the effectiveness of the scheme and to examine how much money banks and building societies have transferred for reinvestment. I am agnostic about whether 15 years is the right length of time after which to declare an account dormant. I am fighting the case of a constituent whose dormant account is 10 years old and appears to have disappeared completely already. Fifteen years is probably a bit on the long side, but such a period does indicate that control of and interest in an account has been lost.
	Finally, I want to look at the distribution mechanism. The National Lottery Act 2006 gave the Big Lottery Fund the power and authority to handle non-lottery as well as lottery funding. The Arts Council and Sport England also have the same powers, as I understand it. More than 80 per cent. of those who took part in the consultation on who should be the distributor of unclaimed assets said that the Big Lottery Fund was the correct organisation to do it. It is already responsible for delivering half the funding raised through the national lottery to projects across the UK concerning health, education, the environment and charitable purposes. The themes that we have heard about so far as the Bill and the focus of this money are concerned are totally appropriate for that.
	I find it a bit odd that the issue of additionality was brought up by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) earlier. Additionality was one of the sticks with which the Conservative party used to beat the Big Lottery Fund and its predecessors. However, the Big Lottery Fund won the argument over the years, and we have not had an argument for three or four years about additionality. Although there may be grey areas and areas where funding is complementary, we accept that the taxpayer, through the Government, has certain obligations, but that complementary funding from other sources is wholly appropriate. What is more, the Big Lottery Fund has won the trust of the people for being fair in the way that it delivers, and it certainly has the experience. The young people project, through the Young People's Fund and YouthBank UK, was a lottery project that gave young people themselves direct input into decision-making projects regarding who should benefit from the funding. I hope that that practice will be taken up again in this instance. The Big Lottery Fund has experience of individual financial management and access to personal financial services through the advice plus programme, through which it awarded more than £11 million to projects for financing and fundraising across the UK. As a social investment wholesaler, it knows that partnership is the key to delivering projects, avoiding duplication and making effective use of funding. The £50 million "fair share" programme, for example, operated in 77 areas of the UK, working in collaboration with the Community Foundation Network—a much underestimated body—to get money to where it really works: inside our communities.
	I very much welcome the fact that we are talking not just about grants so far as distribution is concerned—another Member touched on this issue—but about loans and endowments being made through this funding. All of that helps to create a much more sustainable form of funding, whether or not it is within the life of the funding stream, in so far as it goes.
	There is therefore no need to debate who the distributor should be—the Big Lottery Fund has won that argument. It has a record of appropriate funding, and of openness and transparency and accountability to Parliament. It has well-established offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the English regions. On financial efficiency, according to the National Audit Office, its overheads, at 9.1 per cent., are lower than any of the other lottery distributors', so it is an obvious and satisfactory choice of distributor.
	We will have some interesting debates in Committee, and I hope that there will be some movement on the mandatory versus voluntary issue, because that is the only way that the provision can be made reliable, as well as sustainable.

Richard Spring: It is very good to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). There is clearly a particular Derbyshire interest in this subject. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson) on his new role at the Treasury. I think that he combines it with his role at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, where I suspect, on balance, he will have more fun. However, we welcome him to his new role.
	Like the rest of my hon. Friends, I fully support the motivation behind the Bill and I certainly welcome the spirit in which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke about her approach to considering possible amendments in Committee. That is good for the purposes that lie behind this legislation. I wholeheartedly believe that allowing money in dormant accounts to be used to help good causes or to be reinvested in the community is completely the right thing to do, and it certainly has my full support.
	The Bill follows a long period of consultation and discussion, which we heard about, between the Government and the banking sector, as well as with the Treasury Committee and the Commission on Unclaimed Assets, chaired by Sir Ronnie Cohen. There was much discussion during the Select Committee's proceedings as to how the money should be directed, and there were a number of suggestions. It is worth looking at some of those that were put forward. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) suggested that the first claim on the unclaimed assets should be given to the victims of the wind-up of occupational pensions. The Prince's Initiative for Mature Enterprise called for a focus on microfinance for the over-50s to enable more of that generation to start up businesses. Although many worthwhile ideas have been floated, I welcome and support the allocation of the unclaimed assets to improving youth services in particular, and to tackling financial inclusion and boosting social investment.
	However, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) talked persuasively about the issue of additionality, which was at the heart of what the original lottery legislation was all about. The point is that these areas are already funded by Government expenditure, and I should like the Minister to tell the House how this money will be spent differently from money already spent by the Government on new services. This is an important point, and we come back to the additionality factor.
	When the Bill was debated in Committee by Members in the other place, Lord Howard of Rising mentioned that the Economic Secretary admitted in his evidence to the Treasury Committee that youth services had been underfunded for years—a point that I think is generally accepted throughout this House. However, that raises some question marks over the ability to guarantee that the revenue from dormant accounts will not be substituted for normal Government spending. I come back to the point that it is crucial that we all understand what the Government have to say about this issue. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what proportion of money in dormant bank accounts will be transferred to the Big Lottery Fund? If he cannot answer that question, is it wise to make specific commitments about the use of funds, such as those made on youth centres? I look forward to his reply.
	Before this money is given to help these good causes, it is vital that there are robust measures in place to reunite owners with their unclaimed assets—a point that has been powerfully made by a number of Members today. I very much welcome the banking industry's efforts to achieve that, which I believe to be absolutely genuine. That is all the more essential as this is a time when many families are under great economic stress, and the situation is getting worse. It is also crucial that once the liability is off the bank's balance sheet, there is reserve in the reclaim fund so that it can still pay out to customers who come forward in future to claim their assets. That possibility has to be considered. The Government must continue to give an assurance that a balance will be struck between funding good causes and protecting the customer.
	The British Bankers Association believes—we have heard many estimates—that that there is between £250 million and £350 million in dormant bank accounts. The Building Societies Association estimates that there is some £150 million in dormant building society accounts. Taking those figures together, we are talking about £400 million to £500 million in UK dormant accounts.
	I would be interested to hear whether the Government agree with the Treasury Committee that banks' estimates of funds in dormant accounts are more likely to be underestimates than overestimates. The Chief Secretary touched on that, but it would be interesting to learn a bit more about the Government's evaluation of this matter after their consultations with the banking industry and the building societies. The House of Commons Library agrees with that assessment, because it believes that the scale of unclaimed assets
	"is staggering, but, the estimates vary hugely and reliable sourcing of any estimate is very difficult."
	The Halifax alone has £700,000 of unclaimed money for customers located in the east of England, some of which undoubtedly belongs to my constituents.
	I am glad that many banks and building societies are now focusing their efforts on becoming more proactive in reuniting customers with their accounts. To take up the point that the hon. Member for High Peak made, this voluntary activity—the framework of this legislation—will work only if such a process materially takes place. We must monitor the situation to see whether a more statutory basis is warranted in future.
	Last month, HSBC started to send out letters to its 17,000 customers who have unclaimed money in dormant bank accounts; the average amount in their forgotten accounts is £1,400. In the same spirit, Lloyds TSB announced earlier this year that it had brought in a search agency to track down the holders of 120,000 dormant savings accounts. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the website that provides a free service to help to trace lost accounts and savings. That website, which I have visited, brings together the three tracing schemes of the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association and NS&I into a single website, meaning that anyone who has a dormant or lost account with a bank or building society or NS&I, or with all three, can initiate a search simply by visiting the website. It is free to use, it averages more than 760 claims a day and I find it easy to access. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in accelerating the process of finding the owners of dormant accounts. Following the consultations, I believe that the banks and building societies understand the importance of getting this issue right, and the House will welcome the fact that there seems to have been movement in that direction.
	It is so important that the process of reuniting lost accounts and savings with their owners is kept under review and works effectively. It is essential that the effectiveness of the scheme and the amount that the banks have transferred for investment is constantly examined. If we are to have a statutory scheme, it is imperative that it is accountable to Parliament. Such a provision had been missing, so I was pleased that in the other place the Conservative party successfully amended the Bill to ensure that the reclaim fund sends specified information to the Treasury, which must then lay it before Parliament. I was also pleased that their lordships voted in favour of another amendment, which was sponsored by Baroness Noakes, to provide for a triennial review of the scheme's operations.
	It is also vital that the money passed on to good causes remains entirely separate from and additional to normal Government spend. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Bill's objectives are entirely admirable, yet I am worried that the Big Lottery Fund has increasingly become insufficiently independent of Government. For example, the BLF has awarded about £1 billion in grants to statutory bodies such as schools, local councils and national health service trusts since 2004. In a March 2005 press release entitled "Healthy Food in Schools—Transforming School Meals" the then Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), unveiled a £280 million package to transform the quality of school meals. Despite the fact that more than a fifth—£60 million—of the money was coming from the BLF, the Government seemed happy to take the credit for that decision 36 days before the 2005 general election. That is not at all the spirit in which the lottery was founded or in which it should operate. Unclaimed assets should be used solely for the benefit of society; they should not be used to solve, even by implication, any short-term problem or to achieve what is considered desirable politically by any Government.
	I would like the Minister to assure the House that all money given to the BLF from dormant accounts will go only to projects in the voluntary and community sectors, where it should really go. If the money is to be spent differently, what measures will be in place to ensure that the BLF does not duplicate Government spending? I simply cannot see how additionality will stay intact. Given the choice, no Minister will choose to spend money that comes from his own budget over money that will come from the BLF. I am afraid that such has been the pattern for a number of years. That is why money that has not come as a result of general taxation must be accountable to an independent body.
	In passing, let us consider the composition of the BLF. There is an argument as to whether it should be the distribution body that implements the legislation. Over the years, a number of questions have been raised about the role of the lottery. If there is a change of Government after the next general election, we will introduce a national lottery independence Bill to free the national lottery from political interference by making the National Lottery Commission and the distribution bodies accountable to Parliament.

Martin Horwood: I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because I recall exactly the same points being made two or three years ago during the passage of the National Lottery Bill. It was designed to do precisely what he is describing: to give the Big Lottery Fund much more independence from Government. I think that that Bill addressed that quite successfully, so there may be no need for any additional Bill. Does he agree that the problem is that the Bill before us tends to undermine that approach by, once again, giving Government the power to set strategic priorities for the BLF?

Richard Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I am glad that he agrees with me. People need to be assured that there is proper and discernable distance in these matters, and I return to the point of the national lottery's creation. I was the shadow Minister when the national lottery's purpose and function was changed after the 1997 general election. That had the effect of taking money away from the original good causes and, in retrospect, it was a mistake.
	The assets under discussion in this Bill are clearly not Government money, so I see no reason why they should be distributed through a body that enjoys close relations with the Government. Another reason why I am concerned that the Government are proposing to give unclaimed money from dormant accounts to the BLF is that I fear the amount of money that can be passed on will be diminished by the BLF's significant operational costs. This money should be going straight to charities, but instead of going to worthwhile causes, a proportion of the money—too much, in my view—will go towards paying salaries and administration costs. I would like the Minister to tell the House what proportion of these unclaimed assets will be diverted to administration rather then to helping young people and so on?

Tom Levitt: Towards the end of my contribution I pointed out that the BLF's overheads are about 9.1 per cent., which makes it the leanest of all the lottery distributors. The hon. Gentleman cannot get around the fact that even if the Government or the banking industry were to do the distribution, there would be overhead costs. The evidence suggests that the BLF is the leanest distributor and, therefore, perhaps the most efficient and the best for carrying out this purpose.

Richard Spring: The costs of salaries, administration and all the rest are too high, irrespective of what the hon. Gentleman says about the BLF. As the costs are high, we must consider whether there is a more efficacious way of distributing the money to the people whom we wish to help.
	Lord Howard of Rising tabled an amendment in the other House to stop the BLF spending more than 10 per cent. of the funds it receives on administration, and this argument is most definitely worth examining. The national lottery distribution fund's income for 2006-07 was more than £1.2 billion, 17.6 per cent. of which will never find its way to good causes—instead, it is used to fund the quangos that run the lottery. Administration costs for the national lottery distributors totalled £204 million in 2006-07 and the Big Lottery Fund spent the highest total amount—just under £77 million—on its operating costs. That represents more than 12 per cent. of the total value of grants awarded, according to my figures. In comparison, Scope and Children in Need spend 2 per cent. and 4.4 per cent. respectively, so this may not be the best way to proceed. The Big Lottery Fund employs 1,103 members of staff, compared with the Treasury which employs 1,170. The BLF distributes £630 million annually, but the Treasury distributes 500 times that amount, and—I have to say—it grows every day.
	I support the Bill, but we need to consider whether the mechanism for distribution is the correct way forward. It is a substantial amount of money, which we may have underestimated, and Government spending may become more restricted. Our communities will demonstrate increasing need because of the economic situation, and we must ensure that the money will reach the causes that it is meant to reach in the most efficacious way possible.

Brian Binley: May I welcome the Minister to his new position? I hope that we do not burden him too much on his first outing. I look forward to seeing him appear before the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I wish him well with his joint commission. It is good to see.
	Like many others, I generally welcome this Bill. It will create a real opportunity to provide additional help in several areas that need greater attention, of which youth services are a particularly good example. I am happy to give it my general support, but—as the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said—we have to get it right. The big belt will come early on, because money will be collected from dormant accounts in which it has built up over a long time, and the amount that can be expected thereafter will diminish. That is one of my concerns, and I am sure that the Economic Secretary will wish to address it later.
	Many of my other concerns have already been mentioned, but I hope to make some novel points. I am concerned about the administration of the scheme and its associated costs. The Bill does not help us very much with that concern, and I would like to know more. I am especially concerned about how the money will be distributed. Lack of scrutiny is also a concern. The Big Lottery Fund has come more and more under Government control, and we need to ensure that scrutiny is transparent and open to the general public. I am not sure that we have been told how that will be achieved. On the basis of the law of diminishing returns, the question is whether enough money will be available to meet the objectives laid down by the Government and to meet the promises that we might make about future funding to people who receive moneys early on.
	The final concern is exactly how much money is lying in dormant accounts. The Secretary of State has rightly said that estimates vary massively. The British Bankers Association estimates the value of dormant accounts at between £400 million and £500 million.  The Sun—and I leave it to the Economic Secretary's discretion whether to believe its figures—says that the value is £1 billion. The spectrum seems to grow daily.
	I rarely congratulate the banks, but they deserve our congratulations in one respect. Since the launch of the mylostaccount.org.uk website, many people have been rightfully reunited with the money in their dormant accounts. The number of people claiming for lost accounts has trebled since the website went online, with 760 claims being made a day. To date, 140,000 people have been helped, which is a sizeable effort by the banks. A cost argument was made by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who is no longer in his place, but that is not my point. My point is that that figure was achieved through use of a website, which is not the most costly form of distributing information. Perhaps we should ask why the banks did not do this before. The Economic Secretary might be able to tell me what conversations he has had in that respect and whether there is a case for the banks to answer.
	NS&I has had more than 25,000 successful traces, amounting to £41 million of restored assets, and to date Halifax Bank of Scotland has reunited people with more than £18 million of dormant funds. HSBC has also made sizeable efforts to return funds. The banks are to be commended, but their efforts will detract from the amount that will be available in future years.
	The success in tracing dormant accounts will have an impact on the estimates of the revenue that will be raised, and the Government have already said that money is to be earmarked primarily for youth services, among other projects. They also want to use the money for financial capability and inclusion services. My golly, if there was ever a good time to think about financial capability and inclusion, especially for bankers and the City, this is it. Given that, more money will need to be spent on the Government's objectives.
	I especially welcome the boost for the third sector. Incidentally, I hate calling it the third sector; it sounds like something out of "Star Trek". I prefer to call it the voluntary sector. We are promising a sizeable amount of money for some sizeable projects. At a fringe event at the Labour party conference, the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who was then Minister with responsibility for the third sector, confirmed that a financial institution to channel those funds "is going to happen". That will involve further sizeable cost.
	Under an amendment in the other place, building societies and banks with group assets of less than £7 billion would be able to distribute some of the money through their own community schemes. There are 59 building societies in the UK, many of them capable of taking up that offer, and many smaller banks will want to do the same, although pray God they survive the present conflagration of banks. The money will therefore add up to a sizeable amount. We must ask how much money will be available to meet the expectations that have been raised in the fields to which we have referred.
	I am also concerned about the proportion of money that will be issued by the Minister, as I understand it, to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that I will be forgiven if I say that I am concerned that the Government have that matter under their control through the Minister. I am sure that the present Minister is a most honourable person; I have no doubt about that at all. However, when I consider the way in which the revenue support grant has been used for political ends and the way in which the Government have shifted money to those areas that they consider their priority—it is not unnoticeable that many of those areas are where Labour Members sit, but I would not cast any aspersions about that—it raises concerns. It is fair to ask questions about the possible creation of greater concern about the proportionality of the distribution of the money. I believe that the Government should make a statement on the issue before the Bill is passed—I hope that we will hear something tonight.
	I have talked about the money being considerably less than was expected, and I wonder whether the Government are not promising more than they can deliver. What percentage of the funds would be channelled into new projects such as those mentioned by many people tonight? Into what other areas might the money go? I am concerned about the differential between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I recognise the point about devolved government, but that is no reason to diminish our rights in the country of my birth and infant nurture, England. I fear that we might miss out again, and I do not think that my constituents would be overly happy about that. I could go on about many other issues, but they have been raised by other Members tonight and I would not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by referring to issues that have already been well rehearsed.
	My major point of concern is the Government having their hands on money on which they should not have their hands. Like many people in my home county of Northamptonshire, I have a healthy fear of the Government's ability to spend my money and their money. I therefore want perfect clarity and transparency in how that money is to be spent. I fear that when Government projects go over budget—we all know that they regularly do—there is a temptation to find ways to ease money out of other sectors from which it perhaps should not be eased and to place it into areas that are, in truth, the Government's responsibility.
	I do not want to dwell too much on the Olympic games, but they are a particularly good example of how moneys that were not meant to be spent on such projects are now being spent in large sums. We were originally told that the Olympic games would cost £3.4 billion with a further £738 million coming from the private sector. That has grown to £9.325 billion with only—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is now going to relate his remarks to the Bill that we are discussing.

Brian Binley: I am grateful that you should direct me in that manner, Madam Deputy Speaker. The final statement that I was about to make was about the amount of money coming from the Big Lottery Fund to support the Olympic games. That is why the two earlier figures were relevant. It is estimated that 20 per cent. of the Big Lottery Fund's money from between 2007 and 2013 will be spent on the Olympic games. I and many of my constituents certainly believe that that is an improper use of lottery fund money.
	I raise that point in the hope that we will not see such behaviour with regard to the dormant funds of many honest and good people who have forgotten about them, died or moved elsewhere, leaving behind the money in the bank accounts that we need to take in this way. I call on the Minister to reassure us that that money will not be spent to prop up Government expenditure over the next three, four or five years, when the Government will be stretched.
	I come to the end of my remarks, but I have one final plea. Enough comment has been made and enough concerns have been expressed tonight to make us wary and—to support the comments made by the hon. Member for High Peak—to make us dedicated to getting this right. I know the Minister to be an honest and fair man and that he will want to achieve the same outcome. I hope that he will tell us as he sums up how he might achieve that and how the Government might act in Committee to meet many of the concerns that have been raised this evening and to prove conclusively to the British people that the measure will be a fair and honest way of spending money from dormant accounts and to use it rightly for good ends, rather than to support the Government at a time when their own financial concerns are under immense stress.

Charles Walker: It is wonderful to be back after a long summer recess, and thank God we are back. Let us look at what happens when the House goes into recess for 10 weeks: Russia goes to war, there is a global banking crisis, stock markets are routed and inflation hits 5 per cent. The nation can breathe more easily now, because we are back. Parliament is back and those troubles will be quickly put behind us.
	Let me make a serious point. When we started the debate a number of people asked whether, given the problems in the financial and banking sectors, this was the right time to have the debate and whether we should not focus on more important and pressing matters. On reflection, this probably is the right time to have the debate. We cannot allow the ongoing banking crisis to dominate everything we do in our political lives, because the world goes on. I am more than happy to have this debate today.
	The fact that we have to raise such concerns about whether we should be having the debate is testament to the fact that we have an incompetent banking sector that has overextended itself in a number of ways with other people's money—a bit like the Government, in fact, although it would be churlish to continue down that line. Every cloud has a silver lining, though. When I left here in July, as a politician I belonged to the most hated profession in the country. I came back as a member of the second most hated profession in the country, because we have been replaced by investment bankers. I am slightly grateful for that.
	Let me be serious. It is important to recognise that the money that we are discussing does not belong to the banks. It is deposited in banks at the moment but it belongs to people who have forgotten that it belongs to them, who have died or who have simply failed to use their bank account for a number of years. I recall at least one building society account and one bank account from my early teens that I no longer use. One is with Barclays and one with the Chelsea building society, but there is not a lot of money in either—there was, I think, about £10 in each one when I last looked 30 years ago.
	We need to discuss sensible measures for the long-term use of this money. I have been slightly confused by the numbers discussed today. Some people have said that the figure is £500 million, while my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) told us that  The Sun had scandalously said that it could be £1 billion. My researcher said that it is somewhere between £15 billion and £20 billion, according to the unclaimed assets register in 2007. I am sure that he has a great future as an investment banker, taking £1 and leveraging it 30 or 40 times. However, a vast sum is involved, and perhaps a lot of the money on the unclaimed asset register lies in different places outside people's bank accounts.
	There is a good argument to return the money to the community. I am sure that local communities can put it to better use than the banks can. My word, if they could not do that, they would be in trouble. With the greatest respect, they can probably put it to better use than the Government can. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, the Government spend £500 billion or £600 billion a year, so even if the sum is £1 billion or £2 billion at the high end, it is but a fraction of what the Government spend. Nevertheless, it is still an enormous sum that can make a great deal of difference to a huge number of people.
	Of course, I would very much like young people to benefit from that cash. We have a number of issues with youngsters, many of whom are absolutely wonderful members of the community, but many of whom need a good deal more time and care spent on them to ensure that they have the opportunity to live out happy years as youngsters and to grow up into productive members of society. Many organisations—the Sea Scouts, the Scouts, the cadet forces and so on—do wonderful things with young people and have a proven template that works, and they could put the money to good use. Many community facilities could receive investment. Young people have lots of energy that they want to get rid of, and that energy needs to be channelled. A number of boxing clubs around the country struggle for funding, year on year, but they are very good at diverting youngsters from the street and possibly from a life of crime. All those things are good.
	A number of hon. Members have also pointed out that charities have some claim to the money. It would be fantastic if some of the money went to hard-pressed charities. After all, about one in seven people make a bequest to charity in their wills. Of course, the cancer charities, such as Cancer Research UK, do a fantastic job. They help tens of thousands of families, and they raise tens of millions of pounds to alleviate suffering and find new cures. However, on the whole, cancer charities are well funded; they have high levels of public awareness. Now, in the run-up to world mental health day, it would be wonderful if some of the less glamorous charities that struggle to secure funding could find a way to access the money. I leave that with the Minister to reflect on.
	I served on the Committee that considered the National Lottery Bill and went for the Big Lottery Fund. I have met representatives of the Big Lottery Fund, which is full of bright, capable people, but I am not sure whether "big" is the right word to use; it is a sort of slightly smaller and ever-shrinking lottery fund. Trade descriptions officers would probably have a few concerns about the use of the word "big". It is a bit like buying cereal at discount retailer. It is very cheap, but it is called luxury cereal to make it look attractive. The Big Lottery Fund is being rather over-egged as a vehicle to deliver the money. Too much of what the fund does involves replacing expenditure that should come from the Government.
	I would be extremely concerned if the money just went to fund more things that should be funded by central Government. My constituents in Broxbourne, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South, would be very concerned to think that money, which could make a once-in-a-generation difference to young people in their community and to charities that serve their community, was somehow siphoned off to fund expenditure and projects that most people think the Government should fund. Again, I have tried to raise that issue in a non-partisan way, and I hope that the Government will take that concern on board.
	I should just like to have a little dig at the banks—why not? I would be foolish to let this opportunity pass, to be honest. To be fair, we have heard a lot of Members say today, quite rightly, that the banks have been good at tracking down the people whose accounts have fallen into disuse and repatriating the money to the original depositors, but it took the banks rather a long time to get to that stage. We wonder what they have been doing for the previous 20 or 30 years.
	I might have heard wrong, but I understand that some of the money may go towards making people financially literate—educating them about bank accounts and borrowing—and the banks have a lot to fear from that. They have made a huge sum over the past 10 years by playing off people's lack of financial literacy. They have ruthlessly pushed self-certification mortgages and people borrowing far more than they can pay back—five or six times their earnings—and they should hang their heads in shame. Of course, we must all take responsibility when we borrow money, but the banks have been pretty shabby in their behaviour.
	Finally—I hope that this point does not take me out of the bounds of the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—the banks simply refuse to serve many communities. They have no interest in serving them, because they do not believe that there is any profit in doing so. We have heard that banking is a low-margin business. Banking is not a low-margin business. The margins in banking are very good, and one has only to look at the banks' profits to realise that that is the case. The reason investment banks are in trouble is that they got very greedy, and a number of retail banks got very greedy as well. If the money goes towards educating people about the risks of over-extending themselves, that is a good thing. If that has an impact on the banks' ability to make profits from the most vulnerable people in our society, that is an even better thing.

Martin Horwood: I rise to defend the good name and judgment of mutual building societies and, in particular, the Lords amendments that seek to allow the largest of those building societies to exercise their judgment and to follow the priorities of their members, rather than those of the Government, in distributing some of the funds that we are discussing tonight.
	I claim two qualifications for speaking this evening. As Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, I am, perhaps slightly unexpectedly, the local MP for the Chelsea building society's headquarters. I could not speculate about why it went up-market and ended up in Cheltenham, but I am glad that it did so, as it has been a welcome contributor to the community in Cheltenham and a responsible and ethical presence in our community. I am one of the few hon. Members who has successfully won funding by applying to the national lottery funds and bank and building society foundations in my earlier career as a director of fundraising for a national charity. So I have had experience of the funding processes of both sides, and I shall return to some of that experience later in my remarks.
	It is rather a topical time to debate these issues, particularly the status of the mutual building societies. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and other Conservative Members to decry the greed and irresponsibility of the banks, but the Conservative party is rather a fickle partner in that respect, since it has been absolutely in love with the banking sector and some of the more exciting practices of, for instance, the demutualised building societies for many years. It obviously encouraged that process when in government. It is telling to note that we have now witnessed the final demise of all the demutualised building societies. They have all either crashed or been swallowed or nationalised. We have none left, but we have a relatively healthy mutual building society sector, which, thankfully, is still with us. The mutuals still have tens of millions of members and £150 billion-worth of assets, and they are one of the healthiest sectors of the financial services industry, with loans overwhelmingly backed by retail savings.
	We ought to listen to the large mutual building societies. They have concerns about the direction of the legislation, and those concerns were reflected in the Lords amendments. In the Bill, there is a £7 billion threshold above which banks and building societies would lose control of the funds. Funds above the threshold would be handed to a reclaim fund that would be administered, ultimately, by the Big Lottery Fund. The amendments proposed in the Lords removed that threshold for building societies and allowed larger building societies, but not banks, to administer those fund through their own charitable foundations. That was a good thing. I am afraid that I was disappointed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's opening remarks, in which she suggested that the Government would try to overturn those amendments. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and his colleagues will think twice before fighting that battle, because they would be quite wrong to do so.
	After all, what is the difference in principle between a building society that has more than £7 billion-worth of assets and one that has less than £7 billion-worth of assets? There is no difference apart from size. Both are mutual organisations that exist for the benefit of their members and that have exercised good judgment in doing so; £7 billion is a completely arbitrary figure to choose. As I pointed out in an intervention, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury rather misleadingly implied in her opening remarks that we were talking about the stratospheric, top layer of the building society market, and that most building societies would still be able to administer their own funds. Of course, that is true in numerical terms, but in terms of the assets, the 80-20 rule applies. Some 83 per cent. of all building society assets are controlled by the seven top building societies.
	We need to examine the Government's rationale for trying to remove the right of building societies to administer funds that are made available from dormant accounts. That will tell us a lot about the Bill. Perhaps the Government think that the Big Lottery Fund will be a more efficient, more expert and more supportive funder than the building societies' own foundations. I have to say, from my experience as a charity fundraiser, that the reverse is true. The lottery funders, through no real fault of their own—it was more the fault of the way in which the original legislation was designed—had to administer a pretty bureaucratic, awkward system, from which most charities found it a bit of a nightmare to extract money. In contrast, bank and building society foundations such as the Lloyds TSB and the Nationwide and Chelsea building societies foundations have extremely good reputations in the voluntary sector. They are able to administer funds wisely, and as hon. Members have said, the fact that they look to some of the less popular, more difficult causes earns them a lot of praise in the voluntary sector.
	Perhaps the Government thought that there was a higher rate of dormancy among large building societies. Again, I am afraid that the reverse is true; building societies generally have higher average balances and therefore a lower rate of dormancy overall. The statement might apply to the large banks, but it certainly does not apply to large building societies.
	Perhaps the Government thought that they are better judges of how the money should be spent, because of their strategic plans. That brings us back to the issue of independence and additionality. I am really disappointed by the fatal words in clause 23(3), which do a lot to undermine the good work that the Government did—I am happy to give them credit—during the passage of the National Lottery Bill only three years ago. That Bill sought to address the issue of the mistreatment of some of the lottery funds. That mistreatment had given lottery funders quite a bad reputation. One need only think of the way in which the New Opportunities Fund was set up; on one notorious occasion, funding announcements were made by a Minister at a Labour party conference. There was the school meals episode, in which the Government awarded hundreds of millions of pounds not from their funds, but from lottery funds. Those are examples of exactly the kind of practices that the National Lottery Bill was designed to prevent. It was a good piece of legislation that enjoyed all-party support. It should have tackled the issue and made unlikely any further Government intervention. However, clause 23, entitled "Directions to Big Lottery Fund", has the fatal phrase:
	"Subject to subsection (6), the power to give a direction under this section is exercisable by the Secretary of State."
	It is sad to read those words in the legislation. They begin once again to undermine the independence of the lottery funders. The funds are no more the Government's than any other lottery funds ever were.
	In the case of banks, money from dormant accounts is, in a sense, the property of the original bank account holders, but in the case of building societies, it is certainly the property of the members of the building society. It is unfortunate that the Government should seek to exercise their control by means of strategic plans on how the money should be spent. I am perfectly happy to accept that youth services, for instance, are underfunded; they have perhaps been neglected in previous years. However, that does not make it right for the Government to start rewriting the rulebook on how lottery money is spent.
	Perhaps the Government thought that there was no difference in kind between banks and building societies. However, the legislation accepts that there are different kinds of accounts. Perhaps the Economic Secretary would like to explain why National Savings & Investments is exempt from both the £7 billion rule and the legislation as a whole. It is regarded as different and special. I would say that the mutual building societies are different and special, in that they have an obligation to serve their members. The money is, in a real sense, not the company's property but the property of its members. It has a duty to its members, and not to any shareholders who could be suspected of ulterior motives by the Government. There is an important difference in kind, which is rightly reflected in the Lords amendments.
	Perhaps the Government think that the big building societies are somehow less able to manage, account for and distribute funds than the Big Lottery Fund or the Government. Once again, the reverse is true; almost all the large building societies have already set up an infrastructure that has a very strong reputation when it comes to accounting for, recording and reporting the use of charitable funds. Their established charitable foundations are a well-established, highly respected set of bodies that are very good at administering charitable funds.
	We are left with only one obvious explanation why the Government should seek to apply the £7 billion threshold to building societies as well as banks: the Government must have some political reason for bolstering the Big Lottery Fund. Perhaps there is embarrassment about the underfunding of youth and other services that they now seek to support. Perhaps they are embarrassed about the use of lottery funds to subsidise the Olympics. However, I urge them to resist their command-and-control tendencies and those slightly Stalinist inclinations that have characterised so much new Labour legislation. I ask them to step back and recognise the importance of the independence of the mutual building societies, and of the Big Lottery Fund, and to trust those bodies to stand up to political interference and to administer funds wisely, as they have done with regard to many hundreds of millions of pounds over decades. The Government should take this opportunity to dispel any suspicions. I very much hope that the Lords amendments will stand, and will not be removed by the Government. If the Government take the path that I suggest they take, they will have my full support.

James Duddridge: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) makes a powerful case on behalf of mutuals, but his case is sometimes somewhat weakened by ill-judged comments elsewhere in his speech. He would be better off sticking to substance, which he does very well, than making cheap party political points that are badly placed, badly timed and badly delivered. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to his new role. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who has long campaigned on the issue, made an excellent speech.
	For as long as I can remember, this has been a live issue. In fact, the money that might be raised has been spent several times over in party political pamphlets, debates and so forth. Our debating the issue today is horrendous timing, but at least the measures are finally forthcoming. I say "horrendous" because we are taking money out of the banking sector today only to put it back in next week. I am sure that the accountants will say that the money is both an asset and a liability, and therefore does not affect the capital adequacy ratios, but that misses the point somewhat. It is relevant to the point about liquidity: it is cash in the bank, and the capital adequacy ratios are designed only to measure liquidity—they are not the fundamental themselves.
	It is right that the Government have gone down the voluntary route, rather than that taken in places such as US, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Spain and Canada of a more compulsory system. Listening to the debate, I detected a massive amount of confusion. If I received £1 every time a different figure was mentioned for the amount in dormant bank accounts, I would be a very rich man. My experience, both in this debate and outside the House in preparation for it, shows that where there is a compulsory system, the amount of money brought in is much larger than anticipated. The figure of £20 billion is the highest number that I have heard of, and it appeared in an article in  The Times in late 2006.
	For a long time, the banks were under pressure to give up all that money. They thought it might be mandatory to do so, and that it would be expensive to administer the process. I probed the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the beginning of our debate, because the numbers cited by the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association were low, and historically, were pushed down by the banks to depress both the amount of money they would have to give over and the administration involved in doing so.
	Turning to the 15 years rule, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) made a good point about asking the Treasury for a cash flow of likely moneys. If we obtain that information before Committee, we will be able to tease out some of the numbers involved. What will be the one-off hit in year one, next year, and so on as the money comes out? The Economic Secretary is shrugging his shoulders, but it would be useful to have such an indication. Clearly, we will not have exact figures, as it would be quite complicated for the banks to provide them, but there are basic assumptions at which the Minister and his civil servants could look. I am sure that, deep in the Minister's briefing pack, is information on phase 2 of "Know your customer" and information about money laundering for banks. The focus in that process on money laundering compelled the banks to contact many of those customers, even if the accounts were dormant. As a result of "Know your customer", either the banks will fail in not observing the money laundering regulation or they will indeed have codes against each account and each connection of accounts, even if that is across a number of financial instruments or, indeed, geographic locations, that will say that they tried to contact those customers, particularly about the large amounts, but were unable to do so.
	Clause 12 deals with the triennial report to Parliament. Subsection (2)(f) deals with a report on the operation of the dormant account arrangements, including
	"the desirability and practicality of establishing similar schemes for other categories of assets"
	which may have become dormant. I am deeply concerned about what that may include, and throughout the debate, I have grown increasingly concerned. My list of three or four issues has developed into a list of 10 across a range of financial instruments, including physical assets associated with proxy financial holdings such as gold and things such as safe deposit boxes. Why, if someone went to HSBC and deposited £100 in an account 16 years ago, should that sum be taken away and considered dormant because there has been no contact? However, if they put £100 in an HSBC deposit box 16 years ago, the Government are not suggesting that that should fall within the realms of the measure. In a number of banks, there are safe deposit boxes containing a large number of assets, some of which would be considered dormant under the definitions in the Bill. Alongside those boxes are share certificates and bearer bonds without any name. Taking that to an extreme, the wording in the Bill does not include unused assets, which some people would consider financial assets such as, for example, a buy-to-let house or a house that used to be rented that has fallen into disrepair. I would imagine that in most parliamentary constituencies there is a house that blights a corner of a particular street: no one is quite sure who owns it, and it has fallen into disrepair. Would that be included in the measure?
	The Bill will have a major impact on a number of industries. Hon. Members have spoken about people not collecting gambling revenues. If someone won several hundred pounds on the horses, they would know about it: they would follow the race, and they would be likely to collect their winnings. However, if they bought a raffle ticket in the lottery, they would be less likely to know about a win. Who owns that unclaimed asset? If someone has made a purchase for a small amount—£1—perhaps they do not value the ticket as they would if they made a large deposit. However, sitting behind that ticket may be a large revenue or income stream. There is a broader issue, too, about insurance policies.
	I am reminded of a business that I read about that sold travellers cheques. The main revenue from that business did not have anything to do with the selling of travellers cheques; it was the revenue that was left in a bank account for everyone who lost their travellers cheques but did not exchange them for cash. Who owns that money? A number of businesses will be concerned that their fundamental business model will be wiped away in that three-year report and by the picking-up of disused funds.
	A number of Members have spoken fluently about wanting a clearer definition of dormancy, and I was superficially persuaded early in the debate that that was a good idea, but I very much fear that, given that this is a voluntary system, there will be banks and building societies that want to hand the money over, but are concerned about how they do so under the definition of dormancy. They may get it wrong or go into a scheme and not pick up some accounts as a result of the Government's definition of dormancy. If there is a voluntary system, it is probably better not to have that definition.
	Turning to the Big Lottery Fund, I ought to exercise caution, given that it is coming to Southend next week to show us some of the good works that it has undertaken. My experience to date, however, is that big donors seem to get bigger, and the money is tied up in bureaucracy and administration. People try to get the money out of the lottery. I have visited many community groups that want help to fill in forms to get money, but it eventually transpires that they are not eligible for such money or do not fit into a category. That is the complete opposite of one or two other funds that I know such as the Essex Community Foundation and the Southend Fund, which touch a number of charities, and donate small amounts—£1,000 or £2,000. I cannot help but think that the Government have missed a trick by going to the Big Lottery Fund. [ Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) says that it is not big by national standards, but at a local level it is still millions of pounds, and perhaps organisations that deliver small packages of thousands of pounds would be a more effective distribution channel. Perhaps we should focus on microfinance, particularly social enterprise.

Charles Walker: The problem with the Big Lottery Fund is that its name is a bit of a misnomer. Over the past five to 10 years, the amount of money distributed by the lottery to good causes and charities has become smaller and smaller.

James Duddridge: I now understand what my hon. Friend is saying. He is not trying to say that it is not the Big Lottery Fund or a little lottery fund—it is simply a diminishing lottery fund. I have now got the point.
	As for the issue of taking the money out of the banks, the Government have missed a trick. The old-fashioned bank manager who knew the local community could be an asset for the Government because, rather than investing in normal loans for commercial profit, such banks could be allowed to retain some of that money and to lend either to social enterprise as part of their community support function, and follow that enterprise through or, indeed, go down the line of microcredit to pump-prime capital for microfinance and microcredit in the UK—a system that has been successful in developing countries elsewhere.
	Finally, I should like to probe the Minister further about the differential treatment of dormant bank accounts. There is clearly a major difference between accounts that have £5, £50 or £50,000 in them, yet by my reading of it, the Bill deals with such accounts in very similar ways. I am not entirely sure that that is appropriate.

David Gauke: It is a pleasure to wind up this Second Reading debate, but before I deal with the points raised during it, I should first declare an interest as a non-executive director of an institution that takes deposits, albeit one that has only recently been licensed to do so and is therefore unlikely to have any dormant bank accounts for some years.
	Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I should welcome the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson) to his new post as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I recognise that he will be dividing his time between being a Treasury Minister and being a Minister in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I am not sure whether his brief is, on behalf of the Treasury, to keep an eye on the new Secretary of State for Business, or to keep an eye on the Treasury on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business, but either way, I wish him well in his new post. He may well be forgiven for questioning the timing of the debate. After all, the Bill left the other place in February this year, and he may consider it somewhat unfortunate that we are debating it in this place within about 24 hours of his appointment. However, I am sure he will have mastered the details of the Bill for his winding-up speech.
	We began our debate from the Back Benches with a useful contribution from the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) who clearly has a long-standing interest in the matter, which appeared to be provoked by his discovery that he was paying a direct debit to the funds of the Labour party, of which he knew nothing. There is nothing unusual about that. It probably applies to thousands of trade unionists most of the time, the difference being that it turned out that the bank account to which the funds were going was dormant. It might have been best to let sleeping dogs lie, but that was not how the hon. Gentleman approached it. He has played a significant role in the development of the debate.
	As I run through the issues that we debated, I shall address some of the concerns raised by other hon. Members. The Opposition are broadly sympathetic with the details of the Bill and we will support it this evening. The first part of the Bill relates to the raising of funds from the dormant accounts. The second part deals with how those funds are distributed. We are sympathetic to the structure of the first part. It is right that financial institutions are encouraged to reunite deposit holders with their assets—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—and we acknowledge the steps taken by a number of financial institutions to do that.
	We support the principle of a voluntary scheme. The hon. Members for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and for Clwyd, South, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), speaking in his role as the emissary of the Treasury Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) questioned whether a compulsory scheme would be better, or whether we should keep the option open and include provisions for a compulsory scheme at a later date, should a voluntary scheme be found not to work.
	We share the Government's approach. We think it would be useful to use the expertise of the private sector in a voluntary scheme. It would be cheaper and more efficient, and therefore a better way of raising funds for good causes. It would be a fundamental change in the nature of the Bill were it to contain reserve powers for a compulsory scheme at a later date. If there is a switch to such a scheme, Parliament should consider it closely and properly and have the opportunity once again to debate the matter in the form of primary legislation.
	We also share the Government's caution—I think that that would be a fair word—about the definition of dormant. We do not want to adopt an aggressive approach and we think 15 years is an appropriate length of time before an account is considered dormant. We also support the idea, which was advocated by the noble Baroness Noakes, that banks or building societies must use their knowledge of the account, the account holder or any other relevant matters in determining whether an account is dormant. We do not want funds to be paid out, only to be followed by significant numbers of claims on dormant accounts that are no longer dormant. We understand the Government's caution in respect of the 15-year limit.
	It is essential that deposit holders are able to reclaim their funds, notwithstanding the fact that the account has been dormant for some time. It is vital that such confidence exists, so that there is no basis for the criticism that is sometimes made that the Bill is a grab for other people's assets. Again, we share the Government's approach on the fundamentals, but there are differences, particularly on the scope of the assets covered. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire observed, the Treasury Committee considered the issue and questioned why, for example, pension and life assurance funds could not be included in the scheme. It would helpful if the Minister could address that.
	In particular, it is worth considering National Savings & Investments. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire described as somewhat thin the Government's arguments for not including that. It is notable that in the debate in the other place the Government argued that that would result in an extra tax burden or increase Government borrowing or Government debt. That does not make sense. A dormant account with NS&I, were it to be closed, would be a reduction in debt in one respect and, transferred elsewhere, would be a creation of debt somewhere else. For balance sheet purposes, it would have no implications, so I do not see what the Government's defence is. If they are saying that it is for taxpayers' benefit not to include NS&I, we need to understand why.
	It is worth making a parallel with one financial institution that will presumably be affected by the legislation—Northern Rock. Will the Minister confirm whether Northern Rock will participate in the scheme? It is, of course, a voluntary scheme, but the arguments made for NS&I could apply to Northern Rock. I would be grateful for the Minister's thoughts on that.
	We support the principles underpinning the Bill, but we want to see how it will work. That is the purpose of the triennial review provided for in clause 12. That will enable Parliament to see how the scheme is working and to examine the arguments about whether it should be extended. It would be helpful for the process to take place not just once, but on an ongoing basis, although clearly it is important, three years after the Bill has come into force, to see how the process is working, given the accumulation of dormant accounts. We therefore hope that the Government will not seek to amend or repeal clause 12 or the provisions relating to ongoing triennial reviews.
	We also think that parliamentary accountability is important. We have already discussed the reclaim fund in today's debate. The Chief Secretary referred to the fact that the reclaim fund is very much a private scheme, but we must remember what it is there to do. It serves a public end, having the purpose of providing funds for good causes, but it must make a judgment about what can be distributed safely and what will need to be held back in the event of any subsequent reclaims.
	Parliament will want to be able to take a view on how the reclaim fund is performing. We must also remember that the reclaim fund is subject to direction from the Treasury, under clause 5(4). The fund is very much a public body. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a private scheme created by the BBA and the BSA, it performs a public role and Parliament is therefore entitled to take a view.
	The second issue is how money will be distributed. That provoked a great deal of comment from Conservative Members. Concerns about the efficiency of the Big Lottery Fund were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for West Suffolk and for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge). Concerns were also raised about the lack of clarity about the objectives. In a sense, there are three objectives: youth services, financial inclusion and the social investment bank.
	However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made clear in his opening speech, it is not clear what proportion will go to which objective, what the priority will be or who will allocate. As far as we can see, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families will have that role, although he is responsible only for youth services, not the other two objectives. Does that mean that youth services will be seen as the most important? It might be right for them to be seen as the most important, but we have not had that clarity from the Government. Again, I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister.
	A number of hon. Members mentioned additionality. My hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and for Broxbourne all raised concerns about whether the expenditure resulting from the Bill would go on things that the Government already intended spending money on anyway, or on things that would be funded by the lottery but which the lottery cannot fund because the funding is going to the Olympics. That raises a concern about the involvement of the Big Lottery Fund, in that there could be a lack of clarity about where such sums are coming from.
	That brings me to one of the most important issues, on which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke very authoritatively—namely whether banks and building societies should be able to use their own charitable trusts for funds created as a consequence of dormant accounts or whether everything should go through the reclaim fund and the Big Lottery Fund. The particular area of dispute concerns the larger building societies. There is an agreement on the part of the Government that smaller building societies should be able to use their own charitable trusts because they have strong links with local communities. There is no argument that large banks or banks as a whole should be able to use their own charitable trusts, although it is worth noting that the Government recognise that large charitable trusts can play a valuable role in particular communities.
	Again, it is worth considering the example of the Northern Rock Foundation, which, although Northern Rock has been nationalised, the Government still fund with something like £15 million a year, to be spent in a particular part of the country. If that is an appropriate approach, one wonders why the Government cannot look into the issue more broadly in the context of this Bill.
	The Government recognise that small building societies may distribute funds through their own charitable trusts, but remain resistant to allowing bigger building societies to do so. However, the larger building societies dominate the market. There might be only seven or eight building societies that exceed the £7 billion asset barrier, but their assets constitute some 83 per cent. of all assets. They are still mutual societies, working in particular areas and rooted in communities. I urge the Government, in the current spirit of bipartisan co-operation, to look into the issue again.
	We will support the Bill this evening. It serves a valuable purpose, and it has been improved by amendments during the course of proceedings in the other place. We urge the Government not to reverse those amendments. In its present form, the Bill addresses the main concerns while allowing some flexibility for the larger building societies. It provides sufficient—or, at least, adequate—parliamentary accountability, and we urge the Government not to seek to take it back to its position when it first went to the other place.

Ian Pearson: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate covering many significant matters in the Bill, and, indeed, some that are outside of it. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions, and for the generally constructive way in which they made their points. As has been said, the purpose of the Bill is to enable money in dormant bank and building society accounts to be reinvested for the benefit of the wider community, while at the same time ensuring that consumers are protected, and I am delighted to welcome the unanimous support of all those who spoke in the debate today.
	In addition to those who speak for the Opposition on these matters, we also heard three very impressive contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt). My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South is a long-standing and passionate champion of using dormant accounts for good causes, and he made a number of important points. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, who has looked at these issues extensively, raised a number of points, and I shall try to address the key arguments that he put. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak raised a number of significant issues concerning the nature of the funding, which I hope to address in due course.
	We also had a number of probing contributions from the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring).

Charles Walker: I have just one brief question. What is a social investment wholesaler, and is there such a thing as a social investment retailer or a social investment discounter? I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to help us clear that up.

Ian Pearson: I will indeed clear that matter up in due course.
	I reiterate the welcome for the constructive spirit of openness that was expressed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in her opening remarks, and I am sure that the Members who have spoken today will be interested in discussing these issues in detail in Committee.
	This scheme will be simple for consumers. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) called it "convoluted", but, on the contrary, the consumer experience will remain the same. The intention is that consumers would still use their bank or building society, which would maintain their account records. The consumer would retain the right to payment, and if they wished to reclaim their dormant assets, the process should be as simple as marching into a bank or building society—or writing to it—and demonstrating proof of identity. The consumer would then get the money that was rightfully theirs. There is nothing in the legislation that should prevent that.
	I also want to stress that we believe that a voluntary scheme will work. The industry is publicly committed to it, and in the past few days has reiterated its commitment through comments from the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association. It is important to recognise that only a small fraction—seven hundredths of 1 per cent.—of the total banking assets are going to be transferred. Nevertheless, that is a significant sum in total, and it is right that we should deploy it to good causes. I shall say more about the calculation of that figure in a few moments.
	I also want to stress the importance of the reuniting process that has been going on and to welcome the launch of "mylostaccount" in January this year. More than 175,000 people have submitted search forms on the site, and banks and building societies have reunited people with about £50 million since its launch.
	A number of amendments were made in the other place and I want to stress that the Government have listened to the points that were raised there. We recognise the need for greater transparency over the operation of the reclaim fund. We will table amendments to that end. We agree that reviewing the operation of the reclaim fund is important, but we do not accept the need for a triennial review in statute in perpetuity—an issue that we will want to discuss further in Committee.
	Some hon. Members made detailed points about the absence of a central register. Let me point out in response that mylostaccount.org.uk allows searching by name as well as by institution and it is possible to search multiple institutions. I reiterate the success of that initiative over the current period. We welcome all constructive proposals on how further to improve the reuniting arrangements, but our current view is that a central register would be expensive and would place a significant administrative burden on the scheme. That is why legislating for a central register is neither necessary nor proportionate. Unlike with "mylostaccount", a central register would involve the transfer of significant amounts of personal data from banks to the register operator. It is important that financial institutions treat customers' confidential data appropriately and, in addition, within the confines of the Data Protection Act 1998.
	The Bill allows banks to transfer customer information to a reclaim fund to deal with repayments. Of course, banks will generally act as agents of the reclaim fund and handle the reclaims, so it should be as simple as possible for customers to get the money that is rightfully theirs. There should be no need for routine transfers of information to the reclaim fund, but that would be very different if there were a central register. That is one of the reasons we do not favour that proposal.
	The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) asked how the Treasury will engage with the reclaim fund. I believe that the framework is very clear: consumer protection will be enshrined in the legislation and consumers will reclaim money from their banks just as I have stressed now—with the banks acting as agents of the reclaim fund. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the reclaim fund should be accountable to Parliament. The issue was also raised by other Members, but let me say in reply that the reclaim fund is not a public sector body. It will be set up by the industry independently of the Government. It will be a Financial Services Authority-regulated company incorporated in the UK and subject to company law.
	Comments were made about the Treasury's power of direction, but let me stress that we view that as an ultimate sanction and we do not anticipate needing to implement it. It is highly unlikely that we would use that power, but we will ensure transparency by publishing on our website any concerns about the matter.

Mark Hoban: Will the Economic Secretary reassure the House that the Treasury will not have the power, under these directions, to force the reclaim fund to pass more money across to the Big Lottery Fund?

Ian Pearson: We are very clear that we want the reclaim fund to be a success. It will be for the reclaim fund to produce its own business plan and to strike the balance that we have discussed between the need to protect the consumer and meet any future claims and the need to distribute money to good causes. It will, as I say, be regulated by the FSA, which will obviously want to look closely to ensure that it is financially solvent.

Mark Hoban: I ask the Minister again: will the Treasury have the power to tell the reclaim fund to pass more money to the Big Lottery Fund: yes or no?

Ian Pearson: We have powers that can be used in exceptional circumstances.

Mark Hoban: So that is yes.

Ian Pearson: I am happy to return to this matter in Committee, but it is important to recognise that the scheme is voluntary and that it will be up to banks and building societies to decide whether they wish to participate. All the indications in the public statements that they have made are that they want to do so. The scheme will be privately run and will produce its own accounts, which will be published openly and transparently. It is important that that happens.
	A number of hon. Members asked about the principles for distribution. The Government consulted on that in May 2007, when they set out their intended spending areas for England, which have been discussed during this debate. I stress that feedback broadly supported the Government's proposals for distribution with a majority of respondents supportive of the principles, the use of the Big Lottery as a UK-wide distributor and the Government's intended spending areas. We specified those areas for England, but, as was made clear by the Chief Secretary, it is a matter for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland to set out their own priorities. We heard one contribution on the consultation process in Scotland.
	The Government, supported by the consultation, hold that the spending areas identified in England represent a worthwhile investment of community resources, now and in the future. We will determine the relative allocation for each year in relation to the spending areas for England through a cross-Government working group, which will draw up the spending directions to the Big Lottery. I am sure that we will come back to that in Committee, but it is important to recognise that we have been through a consultation process on the general areas. In determining the relative priorities, we will consider whether further consultation is needed.
	The Big Lottery Fund is a Government-controlled body, but it is a non-departmental public body, independent of Government. A number of hon. Members made some injudicious comments in suggesting that it is an arm of Government and that we are trying to use it to fund normal Government expenditure. That is clearly not the case. It is very much the Government's intention that those lottery funds should be additional public expenditure.

Martin Horwood: According to the National Lottery Act 2006, the Minister should be quite right in condemning some hon. Members for implying that the Big Lottery Fund is run by the Government, but his remark that it is a Government-controlled body rather plays into those hands. Would he like to rephrase and perhaps clarify that expression?

Ian Pearson: I was clear, I hope, that the Big Lottery is a non-departmental public body, independent of Government. The accusation that it is a Government-controlled body that takes the people's money and spends it as it chooses is something that I wholly regret. I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify those comments.
	I re-emphasise that in clause 23 it is proposed that directions to the Big Lottery Fund will be given by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The clause has been deliberately written so that it is broadly similar to wording in the 2006 Act, which relates to the strategic guidance given by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It is right that the Government should give broad, strategic directions for the Big Lottery Fund.
	We have been clear that spending must be additional to Government provision. Unclaimed assets are in effect community resources. They are not a substitute for Government funding. It is right that they should be seen to be used to develop and strengthen communities.
	On the proportion of funds that are likely to go to the Big Lottery Fund, I stress that the reclaimed fund must hold back sufficient funds to repay potential customers. That is crucial. It will manage money on the basis of the FSA's prudential regulation regime. The FSA will consult on that regime and publish a cost-benefit analysis in the usual way. It is not possible at this stage to say what proportion of funds will be passed on to the Big Lottery Fund. That is a decision for the reclaim fund. It will be under a statutory obligation to transfer to the Big Lottery Fund sums that are not needed for reclaim or expenses.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South raised a number of issues in his powerful contribution. Again, I stress that we believe that a voluntary scheme will work. It has the support of banks and building societies. It will be highly transparent, so the basis on which they are participating will be clear.
	My hon. Friend asked about the definition of dormancy and how confident we are about the industry's figures. The industry has provided us with an estimate that after 15 years, 80 per cent. of dormant accounts are genuinely lost by the customer. That level of accuracy in identifying dormant accounts is important to minimise the ultimate level of the reclaim fund and hence overheads. The Government have listened to concerns about the time limit that were identified and discussed in the other place. We plan to introduce a power to amend the limit in the light of suitable evidence that a reduction or increase is advisable. We are reliant on the industry for the estimates, and they are the best estimates available. Of course, we would welcome it if more money were ultimately transferred into the scheme.
	My hon. Friend also asked whether banks will publish their dormant account policies. Again, that is an important issue. My understanding is that the answer is definitely yes. Banks are committed to doing that under the banking code. There will be transparency about how banks are participating, along with the other specific disclosure requirements in the Bill. The flexibility of the proposed scheme is one of its main strengths. It will allow banks to take a wide range of factors into account in identifying dormant assets, which will minimise the possibility of misidentification and, in doing so, help to reduce the costs of administering the scheme.
	A number of hon. Members asked how we will know whether banks are engaging the scheme and in particular whether there will be independent audits. The reclaim fund will publish amounts transferred into the scheme by individual institutions. Banks are committed to publishing their policies on how they are participating in the scheme. They are expected to subject transfers to independent audit as well.
	Hon. Members also mentioned National Savings & Investments and its potential participation in the reclaim fund. NS&I has played an active role in reuniting funds with their owners. It has operated a free tracing service since 2001, and is a committed member of "mylostaccount" in the context of operation and advertising. Since 2001, it has reunited £109 million with 93,000 customers.
	Having examined the issue carefully, the Government concluded that it would not be appropriate to transfer NS&I dormant accounts to the scheme, but NS&I is fully committed to reuniting owners with dormant accounts. I should make the crucial point that NS&I differs from banks and building societies in that its only function is to borrow money for the Government, which is then used to fund public spending. That means that money deposited with it is already doing public good, and including it in the scheme would mean diverting money that would have been spent on public services to the charity sector. We do not believe that that would constitute a prudent use of public funds.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire asked whether members of building societies would lose their membership rights if their dormant assets were transferred. I think he was the only Member to raise that concern, but I can tell him that the proposed scheme will not affect building society membership rights. In a statement made in October this year, the Building Societies Association supported the Bill's provisions concerning the safeguarding of the rights of building society members. The Bill provides that when a building society transfers a dormant account to the scheme, any membership rights attached to that account will continue to have effect as though the account had not been transferred.
	Given that the Government designed the scheme to enable spending decisions to be devolved, I think it follows logically that a population-based formula should be used for allocation. That is why we suggested that the Barnett principles offered an established method of apportionment. The Big Lottery Fund will be required, within the spending directions, to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of funds in England. It has been chosen as the principal distributor because it has a track record of achieving a fair regional and local spread of funding, and because of its work distributing funds to revive communities.
	I am sure that we shall be able to return to some of the points made today in Committee.
	The last point with which I shall deal this evening concerns the provisions on small locally based financial institutions. The purpose of the alternative scheme for such institutions is to provide a balance between recognition of the special role that some small institutions play in their local communities, and ensuring that enough resources are available for the national scheme to facilitate an overall efficient and strategic approach to distribution.
	The Government acknowledge the arguments advanced in the other place, and the important role that mutual organisations play. However, while we welcome in particular the commitment of Nationwide and the other major building societies to participating in the scheme as ultimately constituted, we believe that the amendment widening the option to encompass all mutuals is not desirable. I can give three reasons for that.
	First, the Government consulted on an asset threshold of £7 billion applying to both banks and building societies, and as the proposal received broad support during the consultation, we believe that that is what most respondents want us to do. Secondly, the amendment would significantly reduce the amount of assets available to the national scheme through the Big Lottery Fund, and thereby the strategic opportunity to make a significant difference in the areas identified as priorities for spending. Thirdly, there would be a lack of coherence in national distribution.
	Nationwide and its partners have stated clearly that they will support the English priorities, which is welcome. However, a whole series of different foundations distributing in parallel to the same causes is inefficient and fails to maximise the opportunity of the dormant accounts scheme. It is for these reasons that we do not believe it would be right to maintain the current amendment passed in the other place, but we will come back to this in Committee.

Mark Hoban: On the second reason the Economic Secretary cited, will he say by how much the resources available would fall if the seven largest building societies took part in the alternative scheme?

Ian Pearson: I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but they certainly are significant. The hon. Member for Cheltenham made the point that although a significant number of building societies will be excluded under the £7 billion figure, some of the big building societies will participate in the reclaim fund, and we think it is right and proper that they should do so.

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend said he had dealt with the last point he raised, but I think the elephant in the room is the voluntary nature of the proposals. There has been scepticism across the House about whether a voluntary scheme can work given that no other voluntary scheme is operating in the world. Will he at this late stage undertake to come to Committee with an amendment that would allow reserve powers to be in the Bill such that at the first triennial review the scheme can be made mandatory if the voluntary system is not working?

Ian Pearson: I am certainly happy to debate the issue in Committee. Although what the UK is proposing in terms of the voluntary scheme has not been adopted in other countries, we have had extensive discussions with the banks and building societies and they have all indicated a strong willingness to participate, so we have no reason to doubt the commitment of these organisations to participate.

Martin Horwood: I am sure the Economic Secretary is right that the building societies support the principle of the Bill, but they have fairly consistently objected to the £7 billion threshold applying to them whereas banks have not. Therefore, can he remind us of this: why £7 billion?

Ian Pearson: Well, some building societies have, but others have not, and my understanding is that the figure of £7 billion was arrived at in discussion with banks and building societies and put in the original consultation documents. We consulted on that £7 billion figure applying to both banks and building societies, and it is a proposal that received broad support during the consultation.
	A number of further points have been raised, but I think we can return to them in Committee. I am pleased to be able to say that the Bill has cross-party support. We want to get it right. We recognise that there is the opportunity to scrutinise the detail in Committee, and I look forward to engaging further with Members in all parts of the House as we look to take the Bill forward.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill  [lords]  (Programme)

That the following provisions shall apply to the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill  [Lords]:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 21st October 2008.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. — [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

DORMANT BANK AND BUILDING SOCIETY ACCOUNTS BILL  [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified——
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise-(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the Act; and(2) the payment of funds into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Post Offices (Essex)

Bob Spink: I rise to present a petition that represents the views of many thousands of my constituents who believe, as I do, that the Government should adopt a positive policy of supporting post offices. Post office closures hurt the whole community, but they disproportionately hurt vulnerable people, in particular the disabled, pensioners and people with young families. I warmly congratulate and thank the good and caring residents of my constituency who took the trouble to sign this petition and send it to me during the recess.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of the residents of Castle Point and others,
	Sheweth
	That our local post offices are important to community cohesion, that they provide a vital service to the local community, particularly to vulnerable people, but that their future is threatened by uncertainty over Her Majesty's Government's support for post offices generally, and specifically by the possible abolition of the Post Office card account in 2010, which would be totally unacceptable to the residents of Castle Point, especially vulnerable groups who rely on post offices and the viability of our important high street shopping parades.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House call upon Her Majesty's Government to review its policy on post offices and to recognise that they are greatly loved by the community.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, & c.
	[P000268]

Planning and Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: I shall be very brief, since I tabled a petition similar to this one just before the House went into recess. I received this one in August. Residents of Castle Point believe—to my mind, correctly—that public land that is used as open space by the community and has been for decades should be protected by the council, yet Castle Point council has yet again acted against the public interest and failed to protect the land in question. I congratulate each and every resident who, by signing this petition, showed that they really do care about the community in which they live and are prepared to act on its behalf.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of J Everett, the residents of Castle Point and others,
	 Declares that they suspect that there is a hidden agenda in respect of the public open space bounded by the Chase Thundersley on the north side, and by Runneymede Chase on the east side. They have reached this conclusion first, because a large area adjacent to the annex of the SEEVIC College has been fenced off and they challenge the legal right for this to have been done. Secondly, because Castle Point councillors have decided to no longer regularly cut the grass allowing it to become largely overgrown, and they suspect this is an attempt by councillors to deter people from using the public open space so that the land can be developed. Thirdly, because lately it appears that students of SEEVIC College have been allowed or encouraged to take over the area during breaks, making other users of this public open space feel like interlopers and leaving the space littered with food wrappers, drinks cans and bottles and other rubbish, adding to its dereliction.
	 They further believe that this land, like all public assets, belongs to the people, not to the council or the councillors, and councillors should respect that fact and keep the public fully informed of their and their officers' discussions and intentions regarding land use and the future of all our public assets.
	 They therefore urge councillors to return this land to full and proper public use and to protect it in future, for many valid planning and community interest reasons, and to ensure that this matter is dealt with by councillors rather than officers given its importance to the wider community and the need to protect their valuable public open spaces.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to press all Castle Point councillors, since they have the direct responsibility for this matter, to ensure this public open space is retained for its ancient and established previous use and to immediately publish its discussions and intentions regarding land in this area and behind the Runneymede swimming pool and to be transparent in future with the public on all planning and land use matters.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000267]

REGENERATION (SOUTHEND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Helen Jones.]

David Amess: It might seem like only yesterday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we had the summer Adjournment debate, but it was actually quite a long time ago and an awful lot has happened since then. I want immediately to congratulate the Minister on his elevation to membership of the Privy Council. It is an honour that is well deserved, and I wish him well with his deliberations as a Privy Councillor.
	This Adjournment debate concerns the regeneration of Southend. Of course, those people who have had the delight of visiting Southend might say, "Why on earth does it need regenerating?" I say to the Minister that it certainly needs some assistance in the regeneration process that it is undergoing, but I want to thank all those who have given assistance thus far. Given the very difficult times in which we are operating, we need a great deal of assistance with our regeneration process in Southend, but saying that is in no sense to be churlish or not to thank the Government and all the agencies for their assistance thus far.
	We are blessed with an excellent council in Southend, ably led by Councillor Nigel Holcroft and his deputy, Councillor John Lamb, and we have a first-class chief executive, Mr. Robert Tinlin. However, in advertising that he is a first-class chief executive, I do not want anyone to try to entice him away from Southend, because he is doing a very good job for us. The council has decided that the overarching rationale for regeneration in Southend from its perspective is to make the borough as a whole a better place to live, work and invest in, and to visit. The council, along with the various partners, is working towards that end. It has decided on a delivery plan comprising three points—an economic development and tourism strategy, a regeneration framework, and a central area master plan.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) will, with the Minister's permission, be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I believe that he will probably make some more detailed comments about the regeneration process. I shall not waste the House's time tonight by going into detail about each of the partners with which Southend's council is operating. I simply say to the Minister that it is working with a lot of partners, and in these difficult economic times we need co-ordination, because it is confusing for my hon. Friends and my constituents to work out where the help is originating. I know that the Minister will not have time tonight to respond in detail to the various points that I shall make, but I hope that he will reflect on the fact that too many agencies are involved in the delivery process. Such a situation involves some sort of bureaucracy and that will be expensive.
	I shall briefly raise many points. I know only too well of the Minister's experience as a Treasury Minister, so I say to him that one of the most important issues for the council in terms of the success of Southend's economy is the lack of fit-for-purpose office stock and, consequently, employers are frustrated in their demands. The council believes that the Government could assist in one immediate way: by stopping the recent application of business rate tax on empty, redundant buildings. The effect of the tax has been the demolition of buildings that would otherwise have been partially let to small businesses. I know that he does not have a blank cheque and that this issue is a nationwide one, but if ever he has the time and opportunity to visit Southend—we would welcome a visit from him—he could see at first hand how that particular policy, despite the best of intentions, has had an adverse effect on Southend.
	My hon. Friend won his seat of Rochford and Southend, East in 2005. Before that, I had been devastated by the impact of the 2001 national census. I have raised that matter on many occasions in the House and I have had meetings with councillors, officials and the people responsible for the national census. I found all the arguments unconvincing; how could it possibly have been claimed that Southend's population had reduced by 20,000? According to that national census, Southend's population reduced from 180,000 to 160,000, but that was simply not possible. Anyone living in Southend knows that its population has increased, but the Government have to work within their own guidelines and, as a result, we received £7 million less than would otherwise have been the case. This was a very serious issue, although I shall not bore the House by going over the arguments that I have advanced on many occasions. I simply say to the Minister that a New Local Government Network report published on 20 August bore out the council's assertion that the population was underestimated by between 16,000 and 20,000 because of
	"poor-quality information on households, high rates of population mobility and a growing reluctance to fill in official forms."
	Not one person was prosecuted for not filling in the census form. It is without doubt the case that, far from falling, the population in Southend is growing. However, we suffered financially from the national census.
	On a positive note, I had the privilege of chairing the Committee on the London Olympics Bill. Of course, I had to remain impartial, but now I am free to say that I am a wholehearted supporter of the Olympic games. I was born in the east end of London, and seeing what is happening there now gives me great joy. I am determined that, in 2012, Southend will be at the heart of the Olympic games. Southend is on the London boundary. Indeed, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) would claim that his constituency is the boundary, but Southend certainly has a good claim.
	I have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said about our plans for the opening ceremony. We will not try to compete with Beijing—we do not have 2,012 people to bang drums for a start—but it is a splendid idea that the various towns in London will help to celebrate the games. My dream is that the pier in Southend, which is the longest pier in the world, will somehow be used in the opening and closing ceremonies. The pier would provide us with a unique opportunity to show the rest of the world, against the background of the wonderful River Thames, the joy that everyone feels as a result of our having the Olympic games in 2012. I will bang on and on about that, just as my former colleague who represented Bournemouth, East used to bang on about the millennium bug and computers.
	The British performance in the Olympic and Paralympic games was wonderful, whether one is interested in sport or not, and we should all take pride in that. I am therefore very excited by the prospect of having the games here in 2012 and I am delighted that Southend and Essex county council are working with the Government to ensure that we are involved in the celebrations. I hope that the Government will give us a little more help to promote the top-class diving facilities that we are developing at Garon park. They will include a 10 m platform, which will be the only one in the east of England, and it will be used as a practice site for Olympic divers. Southend has produced some successful Olympic divers, and this will be the best facility in the country. It will be a wonderful training site, and I hope that we can attract some of the visiting countries to use the facilities as their base.
	It is also excellent news that the mountain biking events will take place at Hadleigh castle, which is just on the border of Leigh-on-Sea in my constituency. Local residents are very excited by the opportunity. It is probably too late to change, but I wish that we could have had the sailing off Southend, as well as other activities based there, such as women's football at the new Southend football stadium, which will be ready in about 18 months. The Minister will be pushing at an open door in terms of Southend's enthusiasm for the Olympic games. I hope that he will regard Southend as part of London, albeit on the cusp of the city.
	The new swimming and diving pool in Garon park in Eastern avenue is due to be opened in 2010 and Southend council has set aside £10 million for the project. It will provide a valuable diving training site for our local athletes. The Warrior square pool will be demolished and we will have a wonderful facility at Garon park. Southend has had three Olympic divers in recent years and 20 international divers from both junior and senior squads. The council thought, as one has to specialise in some area, that that would offer a good opportunity to do so. Any help from the Government would be greatly appreciated. It will not be a 50 m Olympic pool, however, but a 33.3 m one, as my old constituency, Basildon, has the 50 m pool. I hope, given that Basildon is quite near to Southend, West, we will be able to link up there to celebrate the activities of the swimmers, too.
	The need to attract international swimming teams is particularly acute following the closure of the 50 m pool at Crystal Palace. I am delighted that Garon park has been selected as a pre-games training camp and I hope that we can build on that. I am absolutely delighted that we have also been designated a Paralympic training camp for boccia, goalball, sitting volleyball, wheelchair fencing and wheelchair tennis. Southend council is working very closely with Essex county council to promote that in whatever way they possibly can.
	I have already mentioned the pier. Sadly, we have not had one fire on Southend pier, nor two fires, but three fires, and that is very regrettable. I do not know whether the Minister has ever had the opportunity to visit the end of Southend pier on the train, but it is a wonderful leisure facility. Obviously, to have suffered three fires is pretty devastating and any extra assistance that we could be given to help with the regeneration of that Victorian pier would be greatly appreciated. For instance, the rotten decking urgently needs repairing and we are desperate for financial support. If any assistance could be given, through whatever funding, towards repairing the deck, that would be greatly appreciated.
	I am very grateful for the assistance that has been given recently in improving some of our road networks, such as the A12 and other roads, but I want to make a few brief points about Priory crescent. Before my hon. Friend became the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, that became a contentious local issue. In summary, we are talking about traffic congestion in Southend. There is a very famous park called Priory crescent and it was deemed that a road widening scheme should be embarked on. Local residents became upset because that would have meant cutting down some very old trees and a number of houses would have been blighted as a result of the scheme. A number of campaigning individuals have set up a camp on site and have been there for a number of years. The argument about the scheme has gone on and on. Given that money is very tight at the moment and that widening the road would be very expensive, I would have thought that it was advisable for the Department to reflect on the project.
	The Minister might not have time to say much about it this evening, but it would be helpful to say that we need to look again at that project. The scheme is expensive, but for it to have hung over local residents for so long is, to say the least, very unhelpful indeed.
	The road improvement schemes that are welcome, because the Government awarded £4 million to the council to improve Southend's roads, include the resurfacing of Kenilworth gardens in Westcliff, Chalkwell esplanade and Elm road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. A cycle route from Chalkwell avenue to the seafront will also be embarked upon. I am very grateful for that.
	Given the Minister's time in the Treasury, he will be aware of the reorganisation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. In Southend, we have very few large employers, and HMRC is a very important employer in the town. The announcement that 400 jobs would be cut over the next three years, which would cause a 20 per cent. reduction in the Southend work force, is absolutely devastating. That decision seems rather bizarre, given what the different agencies that help the regeneration of Southend have said about employment prospects, and it would be a devastating blow to the local economy. I simply ask the Minister to look again at that proposal.
	I will not get into arguments tonight about housing in Southend, because there is no land to build on in my constituency. It is not an issue in Southend, West; it is more of an issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. However, I want to touch on other issues very quickly, one of which is cliff slippage. Again, if the Minister does not have time to respond now, perhaps he will write to me. A few years ago, the cliffs in Southend began to slip. One of the things that we are very strong on in Southend is the parks department's planting of the cliffs—absolutely magnificent—but unfortunately, we suffered a mile-long slippage. One of the Minister's colleagues was helpful and responsible for allocating some money for the restoration of the cliffs, but we need more, because the cliffs have continued to slip and dealing with that has proved more expensive than we expected.
	The lift to get senior citizens up the cliff connects Clifton terrace with Western esplanade; unfortunately, it is expected to be out of service for another year while works are done. It was built in 1912—again, this links in with the Olympic games—and it is one of few lifts of its type in the country. The council refurbished the lift two years ago, with a helpful £1.8 million Heritage Lottery Fund grant. However, the cost has risen by £400,000, because of new European regulations that classify the lift as a cable car, rather than as a railway. That will necessitate a re-examination of the lift mechanism and paying costly consultation fees. I know that that is not the Government's fault. There is a new European regulation in place, but if we do not comply with it, we will never get our lifts. Again, I ask the Minister to look into the matter and to find out whether there is any way in which assistance can be given, perhaps through European funding.
	Another point that I wish to raise with the Minister is the silting-up of the Thames estuary in Leigh-on-Sea. A number of fishermen and women in Leigh depend for their livelihood on cockling and on catching Dover sole, but the Thames estuary has become increasingly silted. A project to try to solve that problem would be very expensive. Perhaps the Minister could consider the issue.
	Earlier tonight, I was invited with colleagues to the Royal Opera House to enjoy a number of brief performances. During the evening, it was announced that Thurrock, the other unitary authority in Essex, is benefiting from a scheme run by the opera house to try to bring the arts, which are of course expensive—and, some would argue, elitist—to more challenging parts of the country. The opera house has set up a wonderful workshop in Thurrock. I seized the opportunity and sought out the gentleman in charge of the Royal Opera House's education project. He tells me that he will work with Southend-on-Sea borough council and the local college to see whether we can develop the arts in Southend. The Minister will know of a number of famous actors and actresses from the area. A Southend girl won an Oscar last year with her portrayal of the Queen. We have many famous singers, dancers, sculptors and painters, too; there is a real gathering of cultural excellence in Southend.
	Let me come on to the point of this Adjournment debate on the regeneration of Southend. Southend was once a very popular seaside resort. It attracted people for holidays of a weekend or a little longer. The Minister knows only too well of the difficulties that Southend and other resorts have experienced. We cannot do anything about what some people regard as the unreliability of our weather. We cannot do anything about the impact of competition as a result of cheap flights—or what were cheap flights—which have meant that the world is becoming increasingly smaller. However, Southend and other seaside towns have basically lost their place in the market as resorts. We have decided to try to reposition ourselves. At the heart of that are the leisure and cultural opportunities that I mentioned. However, Southend also wants to position itself as a centre of learning. The South East Essex College of Arts and Technology in Southend has joined in a partnership with Essex university, and that partnership is having a wonderful effect locally. I thank the Government for any assistance that they have given us thus far, but I would welcome any further assistance that the Minister and his Department could give.
	I have claimed, over the years, that Southend is the finest resort in not only the country, but the world. Which Member of Parliament worth their salt would deny that? The joy of experiencing the moving picture that the Thames estuary produces is quite unique, and it will be celebrated when we enjoy the Olympic games in 2012. However, Southend really does need help with regeneration. The area that I represent has the highest number of senior citizens in the country; that is why we are in the "Guinness World Records" book for holding the greatest gathering of centenarians in the country. Those senior citizens want to enjoy the town today, but they have at the back of their mind how it used to be. With a little bit of help, I think that our former glories will return. I have every confidence that the Minister will do all that he possibly can to assist Southend with its regeneration.

James Duddridge: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate so soon after our return from the recess? Having spent two months thinking of lots of things to say, and given the hours that one could spend talking about Southend, I thought I had to pare my contribution down to five minutes, only to find that I have the luxury of a little more time. It is a great position for someone who is so passionate about Southend to be in, but I will limit my comments and not take up all the available time and detain the Minister too long on his first full day in office. Ministers come, and Ministers go. In the case of some Ministers, they come and go, come and go, and come again. However, being made a Privy Councillor is something that people cannot take away from someone. The Minister will always be a right honourable Gentleman, and it is good to have him here to reply to the debate.
	I hesitate to disagree at the outset with my colleague, but the title of the debate gives me some discomfort. I represent Rochford and Southend, East, but as soon as I talk about Southend, everyone in Rochford writes to me and says, "What's wrong with Rochford?" I will not stray, however, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and test your patience. The other problem that I have with the debate concerns the other word in the title—there are only two words, so it seems rather churlish—which is "regeneration", as it suggests something that is done to an area, rather than by an area. It has connotations of the public sector, a master plan, a right way forward, and a process that is planned and ultimately reached. However, if one looks at Southend's history, some of the best changes have been organic and have been achieved bit by bit. Some of the worst things in Southend have been planned: the '70s tower blocks that were built, with old Victorian housing smashed through. Parts of the town centre were ripped out and destroyed to provide new, progressive, modern buildings, so I am a little concerned when we talk of regeneration that we may repeat past mistakes. Personally, I prefer the term, "investment", not only by the private sector but by the community, which should invest not just its money in the town but its time, community spirit and so on.
	Under the term "regeneration", Southend council quite rightly wants to make Southend a better place to live, work, visit and indeed to invest in. If we achieve all four things we will achieve regeneration—a term I dislike somewhat. Another term mentioned by my hon. Friend that has been bandied about is "partnerships". Everyone seems to be working in partnership, and it has almost become incestuous. We cannot be sure who are the different parties in the regeneration debate. I will illustrate that point for the Minister by citing an excellent development that I fully support. The university of Essex came to Southend, and, I walked through the site with the opening party, which was quite large—not only were there dignitaries and a member of the royal family but everyone who had participated in the project. Representatives of some 15 organisations were wandering through, and when we unveiled the plaque, there were about 15 different logos representing people who had put money in. One lady who was wandering round said, "You know, James, actually, it was us who pump-primed all of this." Their logo was not even on the board.
	When one drills down into the question of what those organisations were, quite often they were the Department for Communities and Local Government in one guise or format or another. Everyone was saying that they pump-primed the university: they put in a little bit of money and achieved a great deal of change. I asked them a question, "How much did the whole thing cost?", but very few people knew. In fact, no one was able to tell me. I am sure that I could have probed the issue further. Interestingly, however, when I spoke to a third of those 15 or so donors, no one appreciated the overall cost or how much Government money had been put in. No one appreciated how much DCLG money had been put in. They were just proud that they had pump-primed the investment.
	I worry that as part of the regeneration process, it is conceivable that we end up spending more money than we need to. It is also conceivable that we spend it on the wrong thing. One of the problems with all these partnerships is that there is a democratic deficit. There is a lack of linkage between what the people of Southend want and what all the organisations want. To a degree, Southend council got into an unholy alliance of necessity with a number of partnerships, because that is the only way to get money out of the Government. They played the game, but is it right? Are the rules of the game right? Is the structure of funding right? I assert to the Minister that it is not right, it is confusing and there is a democratic deficit. One of the things that he can do, not just for Southend, but for other areas in the country, is to give the process a good shake-up.
	In our area there is Thames gateway. No one I know describes themselves as living in Thames gateway. Thames gateway does not even exist. Southend exists. People say they come from Southend, from Prittlewell, from Essex or from the east end. Nobody has ever told me they come from Thames gateway. It is not a defined area of community spirit.
	I am extremely concerned about central Government taking assets into national hands, even with the acquiescence of a local council, to pump-prime some type of investment. That seems to be completely the wrong direction of travel. For example, English Partnerships took a large share in the car parks in Southend, in the hope that it would get private sector development money to develop those car parks, provide car parking space and develop the town centre. The Government should be helping to push money down, not pull money out.
	I want to be brief, but I want to touch on some of the points that my hon. Friend made. The errors in the census, which predates my election, are crucial. Those errors cost Southend £7 million every year. If the Minister takes away one thing from my contribution, will he please look at the figures again? The Government will probably not want to look all the way back to the last census, but we must make sure that we get the census right for areas such as Southend, Slough, Manchester and the City of Westminster, which do not easily fit into an existing box. It is difficult to measure those populations.
	Southend airport is an excellent airport. I have mixed feelings about its rebranding. It is now called London Southend, as seems to be the fashion with airports across the whole of the United Kingdom. Southend airport is a decent airport that is looking for extra money to expand. I ask the Minister to look at the 2012 Olympics and speak to his colleagues about London City airport, which may well have to close for security reasons. If it does—it would be a sensible decision to close London City—Southend airport needs the investment now rather than in three or four years so that it can be leveraged for the Olympics.
	I agree with my hon. Friend on transport infrastructure. We need a decision on Priory crescent as soon as possible. Almost any decision is better than the present prevarication, waiting and uncertainty. We need consistent, joined-up government. HMRC was mentioned. Not only are those 400 jobs moving away, but new public sector jobs cannot be created in Southend because the south-east is deemed an affluent area and under the Lyons review, new jobs cannot come into largely affluent areas such as the south-east and the east of England. That ignores the clear pockets of poverty in Southend, which are largely clustered around the very same buildings that provided a great deal of part-time work and temporary work—exactly the type of work that was getting people off benefits, into the working marketplace, then off benefits entirely and into full-time jobs.
	Lastly, I shall mention two issues. The first is the driving test centre in Southend. This might seem a trivial point but it is symptomatic of the Government moving services away. Southend has an expanding population and an expanding youth population, given the university, yet the Government have taken the decision to close Southend driving test centre. They held a consultation and ignored it. The consultation seemed pretty pointless, because the Government had made the decision already, and I must admit that I wondered aloud in my office, asking rhetorically, "What on earth is a consultation?"
	My research assistant, taking that more as an instruction than a rhetorical question, did some research on what a consultation is. Evidently a consultation is a consultation only if the decision is not predetermined. I have documents that have been leaked to me that say not only that the decision was taken, but that planning permission was granted and that the site was being built before the consultation took place, moving Southend driving test centre out of Southend and into a bigger centre near Basildon, which is a problem experienced elsewhere.
	Finally, let me reiterate the point about business rates on empty properties. There has been a boom in the demolition business in Southend. Some of the buildings were ugly and needed to be demolished; indeed, it is good that they have been demolished. However, there were many buildings that were important to Southend's history. There were lots of buildings that were largely unoccupied, but partially occupied by small businesses, which have had to move out and suffer all that disruption. I am not entirely sure whether what has happened in Southend is the same as elsewhere in the country or whether the Government's intentions have matched the consequences. I urge the Minister, in his dealings with other areas, to see whether the consequences of raising business rates on empty property have been adverse, particularly in regeneration areas.

John Healey: I congratulate both hon. Members who have spoken on their kind words and pay tribute to them for the tone in which they put the case for their constituencies and their town. We are fortunate to have more time than is generally the case for these end-of-day debates. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate. It should surprise no one that he was first in line for the Adjournment debate on the first day back. He has a formidable reputation as an advocate, and not just for his current constituency—I notice that he even managed to work in a reference to Basildon, which has been ably represented since 1997 by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith).
	In many ways we are picking up from where the hon. Gentleman's previous Adjournment debate on the regeneration of his area a couple of years ago left off. We can see significant progress since then, which he was good enough to recognise. The new university of Essex campus in Southend is important for, as he put it, repositioning the town. We have seen a local area agreement signed between the Government and Southend, together with the agencies with which the council works. The priorities set by that agreement included improving Southend's image, raising the level of activity in the local economy and raising aspirations in the local area. We have also seen the beginning of a public consultation on a new home for Southend's Saxon king artefacts.
	A new location has also been found for Southend United football club, at Fossett's Farm. As I also follow a team in the lower divisions of the football league, let me in passing congratulate the team on its victory at the weekend, although I note that Yeovil were down to nine men at the end of the game. Nevertheless, three points are three points.
	There is also the wider regional view, which is important to the town. The recently published east of England spatial strategy identifies Southend as one of the important centres for development and change, particularly in skills, transport and wider regeneration or investment, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) argued. The strategy is important in the longer term, because it places Southend in the Essex part of the Thames Gateway and the drive to see an extra 55,000 jobs in that period, as well as setting out the ambition of a significant number of new homes in the area, which will also be needed.
	The Government have tried to give support where we can—not only in the local area agreement but in backing the local strategic partnership, Southend Together—to opportunities that are in the area and for the area. I share the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about the term "regeneration". Sometimes it has meant something that has been done to an area, having been drawn up by agencies outside the area, rather than something that has been done by an area for itself. The local strategic partnership now plays an important role in ensuring that the future of Southend is determined in Southend, drawing on support from outside the area—from within the region and from Government, where it can—while nevertheless fashioning its future for itself.
	After studying this matter, I believe that in many ways we are on the cusp of an important period, in which there will be significant opportunities to promote Southend's advantages as a location close to London and connected with the 2012 Olympics, to make maximum use of its assets as a seaside town and of its pier, and to promote Southend—as the borough council is doing—as a place to visit and to live, work and invest in.
	I welcome the description of the hon. Member for Southend, West of himself as a wholehearted supporter of the Olympic games. As he explained, Southend has been selected as a pre-games training camp, and was included in the guide distributed to the nations competing in Beijing. It has also been designated as a Paralympic training camp for a number of sports. I will certainly alert my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics to his vision for the use of the pier as part of the Olympic ceremonies, and to his enthusiasm for his town to play a part in the Olympic games.
	However, it has been recognised in the debate that, despite the fact that Southend is a town with many attractions, it is also a town with serious pockets of deprivation, hence the need for the investment that we are discussing. Before I come to the question of regeneration, however, let me deal with some of the specific points that have been raised in the debate.
	The second reservation of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about regeneration concerned the plethora of partners that can sometimes be involved. I am not saying that he is wrong, but when we look at the need for investment and regeneration across the piece, we see that it can be a complex business. It involves much more than just the need for a new building or for physical regeneration, and often requires the contribution, and the alignment of plans, of a number of different agencies. Nevertheless, in our regeneration efforts around the country there is undoubtedly scope to reduce the complexity of the arrangements. That has been part of the thinking behind bringing together the new Homes and Communities Agency under the Department in which I am a Minister, so that it can become possible for areas such as Southend, and their councils and local agencies, to have a single conversation with the Government about their plans and their case for future investment. I hope that we shall see the process becoming a little more straightforward, now that the agency has been established under the very able leadership of Sir Bob Kerslake.
	On empty property relief, I have to say that I did not entirely follow the argument of the hon. Member for Southend, West. He said that there was a shortage of office space in Southend and that the empty property relief was causing the problem. Part of the rationale for removing the relief is that it increases the incentives or decreases the disincentives for rapid re-letting or redevelopment. That, together with recognition that the relief cost the taxpayer £1.3 billion a year, was the nub of the case for making changes to the empty property relief. Given that pressure on public spending and concern about other taxation were so strong, it was difficult to justify that level of public subsidy for property owners who were keeping their properties empty. Although we keep all tax regimes under review, we stand by the case for introducing those changes. As the Minister responsible, working closely with the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities, I have been able to assess their impact. We are now about six months into the financial year in which they were made, but we are keeping a close eye on them.
	On population, it is difficult territory and it has also been well tilled, not least by the hon. Member for Southend, West. When the 2001 census was published in 2002, there were obvious discrepancies, particularly in some areas, with the mid-year estimates. That led to the Office for National Statistics doing a substantial study in 2004 to get to the bottom of those difficulties. I believe that 32 different areas, including Southend, were examined and that adjustments were made to the mid-year estimates in respect of about half of them. The hon. Gentleman has debated the issue several times and he will remember that, unlike in the areas where adjustments were made, there was no evidence for doing so in the case of Southend.
	Until a little more than a year ago, I was the Minister responsible for the ONS for two years, so I was heavily involved in the preparations for the next census. The ONS is taking a number of important steps to ensure that any apparent or arguable flaws in the 2001 census will not be evident in 2011. I hope that we will ensure that, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East urged, the 2011 census is soundly based so that we do not have to confront similar difficulties. Looking back over the decades, the difficulty of conducting censuses is compounded by the fact that our communities are not only much more diverse, but very much more mobile. That makes the census a difficult technical challenge to undertake.
	Having been the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise before Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs came along, I am aware of how important Southend is to the service. The reduction in the number of posts planned for Southend is smaller than in some other areas. As I understand the plans, most of the reductions will be achieved through natural wastage.
	On cliff slippage, I am grateful for the recognition that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), helped out when she was a Transport Minister.
	I will look further into the European regulations on whether things are classed as cable cars or railways and try to find out whether something in the application is making things more difficult than they need to be. I cannot promise, however—I do not want to raise expectations—that there will be any more central Government money to help if the finances are squeezed.
	May I come to the question at the heart of the debate, which is the regeneration and future of Southend? As the hon. Member for Southend, West made clear very powerfully, there are some structural weaknesses in the Southend economy, which in the past relied principally on tourism and certain types of financial and business services. Although estimates show that more than 6 million visitors go to Southend each year—making a substantial input to the economy and the jobs base that relies on such visitors—it is clear that that is increasingly difficult to rely on, particularly in view of today's tastes and some of the problems we have seen this summer with the British weather.
	Looking at the figures, a second structural weakness that strikes me is the skills base of Southend. The figures for what in the jargon is level 2 and what to the rest of us is the equivalent of five good GCSEs show that Southend lags behind the national level. That has been clearly recognised by the council and the agencies that it works with as one of the priorities to tackle through the new local area agreements.
	In tackling the structural weaknesses, there is physical regeneration and the softer regeneration that is required. Let me deal with the physical first. At the heart of the matter—what, in a sense should be the answer to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East—is the fact that Renaissance Southend should be the locally led way to harness the concerns and potential investments from the public and private sectors towards a vision for the future of Southend that is brought together, agreed and agreed locally. Some of the work on the master planning has started, as has work on some of the assembly of land. Work has also started on some of the repositioning or rebranding of Southend.
	As the hon. Member for Southend, West argued, Southend is more than simply a seaside town, but something new is needed for the new era. The redefinition of Southend as a town, based around investment in education—partly to deal with the structural problems that I mentioned and partly to give the town a lift and a new direction—is an important element, alongside the cultural profile that the town is also trying to raise. Trying to make the town a cultural and commercial centre for the region is an important part of the future. The £20 million newly opened campus for the university of Essex is clearly pivotal to that, providing not only education facilities, but a business development centre and an innovation centre, alongside the commercial space.
	I do not think that this has been mentioned in the debate, but the ambition to link further education with the new higher education facility is important in encouraging rising aspirations and a sense for many young people locally—indeed, older people as well, but particularly the next generation—that what is provided in Southend offers the possibility to achieve the qualifications and skills levels that are lacking in the town. The investment of £52 million in the South East Essex college building at the heart of the town centre is a big part of that. The use of education and culture offers a new direction that marks Southend out as different from other towns in the region.
	On the cultural side, there are recent projects such as Metal, the artists' laboratory, which is creating a new headquarters in Southend-on-Sea. I have mentioned the proposed new £35 million Saxon king museum and cultural centre, and I must say that I was not aware that Helen Mirren hailed originally from Southend, but that is clearly a potential asset for the town.
	On Priory crescent, the borough council is poised to submit to the Department for Transport a major scheme business case on the pressure point of its junction with the A127 at Cuckoo corner. The hon. Member for Southend, West may want to make local inquiries about that, but that is my understanding. If that is submitted, Ministers will give it full consideration alongside the other calls on central transport funding. However, I will ensure that his views are registered and part of the consideration that Transport Ministers bring to bear should that case be submitted.
	I have mentioned the physical side—the structural weaknesses—and, in passing, the social side of improvements in investment, and that is where the requirement for the aligned effort of a number of agencies comes into play in any bid to regenerate an area. In identifying the five most important factors in making their neighbourhood a good place to live, residents did not choose big investment in regeneration of buildings and facilities, but chose instead the level of crime, heath services, clean streets, education provision and decent housing. No single agency can help to solve the problems posed by each and every one of those five challenges and improve standards entirely on its own. For instance, the effective collaboration of different agencies in Southend led to a 20 per cent. reduction in crime compared with four years ago. That is a notable success and beyond the targets set locally for that work.
	The aim is to make Southend a good place to live, work, visit and invest in. It has some strong natural advantages, including a good location and the potential of the 2012 Olympics to drive some of the new ambitions. There is no doubt that Southend needs a fresh direction—a repositioning, as the hon. Gentleman described it. There is no doubt that its future is more promising than its immediate past. As a Government, we will work to support the plans of the local authority, and the agencies alongside it, in whatever way we can to secure that aim so that Southend does indeed recapture, although in a different way, some of its former glories.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.